Comparative clinical performance of two types of drug-eluting stents with abluminal biodegradable polymer coating: Five-year results of the DESTINY randomized trial

Resumo Introdução e objetivos: Stents Coated with the Biodegradable Polymer on their Abluminal Faces and Elution of Sirolimus Versus Biolimus Elution for the Treatment of de Novo Coronary Lesions (Destiny Trial) é um estudo randomizado de não inferioridade que comparou o stent farmacológico eluído com Sirolimus Inspiron® (SES) ao controle o stent Biomatrix® Flex eluído com biolimus (BES). Relatórios dentro do primeiro ano mostraram resultados semelhantes para ambos os stents, em seguimento clínico, angiográfico e também em análise de tomografia de coerência ótica e ultrassom intracoronário. A presente análise tem como objetivo comparar o desempenho clínico desses dois stents farmacológicos com polímeros biodegradáveis após cinco anos do procedimento índice. Métodos: Foram randomizados 170 pacientes (194 lesões) em uma proporção de 2:1 para trata mento com SES ou BES, respetivamente. O desfecho primário para o presente estudo foi a taxa em cinco anos de eventos cardíacos adversos maiores combinados, definida como morte cardíaca, infarto do miocárdio ou revascularização da lesão-alvo. Resultados: Em cinco anos, o desfecho primário ocorreu em 12,5% e 17,9% para o grupo SES e BES, respectivamente (p=0,4). Não houve trombose de stent definitiva ou provável entre os pacientes tratados com o novo SES durante os cinco anos de seguimento e ausência de trombose de stent após o primeiro ano no grupo BES. Conclusões: O novo stent Inspiron® apresentou uma boa e semelhante performance clínica no seguimento em longo prazo, quando comparado com o controle o stent de última geração Biomatrix® Flex.

Comparative clinical performance of two types of drug-eluting stents with abluminal biodegradable polymer coating: Five-year results of the DESTINY randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The Stents Coated With the Biodegradable Polymer on Their Abluminal Faces and Elution of Sirolimus Versus Biolimus Elution for the Treatment of de Novo Coronary Lesions - DESTINY Trial is a non-inferiority randomized study that compared the Inspiron™ sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) with the control Biomatrix™ Flex biolimus-eluting stent (BES). Previous reports in the first year showed similar outcomes for both stents, in clinical, angiographic, optical coherence tomography, and intravascular ultrasound assessments. The present analysis aims to compare the clinical performance of these two biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents five years after the index procedure. METHODS: A total of 170 patients (194 lesions) were randomized in a 2:1 ratio for treatment with SES or BES, respectively. The primary endpoint for the present study was the five-year rate of combined major adverse cardiac events, defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization. RESULTS: At five years, the primary endpoint occurred in 12.5% and 17.9% of the SES and BES groups, respectively (p=0.4). There was no definite or probable stent thrombosis among patients treated with the novel SES stent during the five years of follow-up, and no stent thrombosis after the first year in the BES group. CONCLUSIONS: The novel Inspiron™ stent had similar good clinical performance in long-term follow-up when compared head-to-head with the control latest-generation Biomatrix™ Flex biolimus-eluting stent.

Metallic Limus-Eluting Stents Abluminally Coated with Biodegradable Polymers: Angiographic and Clinical Comparison of a Novel Ultra-Thin Sirolimus Stent Versus Biolimus Stent in the DESTINY Randomized Trial.

AIMS: To evaluate the outcomes of patients treated with a new drug-eluting stent formulation with low doses of sirolimus, built in an ultra-thin-strut platform coated with biodegradable abluminal coating. METHODS: This study is a randomized trial that tested the main hypothesis that the angiographic late lumen loss of the novel sirolimus-eluting stent is noninferior compared with commercially available biolimus-eluting stent. A final study population comprising 170 patients with one or two de novo lesions was randomized in the ratio 2:1 for sirolimus-eluting stent or biolimus-eluting stent, respectively. The primary endpoint was 9-month angiographic in-stent late lumen loss. Adverse clinical events were prospectively collected for 1 year. RESULTS: After 9 months, the novel sirolimus-eluting stent was shown noninferior compared with the biolimus stent for the primary endpoint (angiographic in-stent late lumen loss: 0.20 ± 0.29 mm vs. 0.15 ± 0.20 mm, respectively; P value for noninferiority <0.001). The 1-year incidence of death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and stent thrombosis remained low and not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The present randomized trial demonstrates that the tested novel sirolimus-eluting stent was angiographically noninferior in comparison with a last-generation biolimus-eluting stent.

Riscos da Radiação X e a Importância da Proteção Radiológica na Cardiologia Intervencionista: Uma Revisão Sistemática / Radiation Risks and the Importance of Radiological Protection in Interventional Cardiology: A Systematic Review

Discutimos aqui aspectos vinculados ao enquadramento legal, a recomendações internacionais e a programas de formação em proteção radiológica; ao angiógrafo e à qualidade da imagem; aos efeitos biológicos e aos riscos das radiações ionizantes; às lesões em operadores e pacientes; aos níveis de referência do paciente; ao limite de dose ocupacional e a suas medidas de prevenção. O uso das radiações ionizantes acarreta riscos, que, contudo, justificam-se em procedimentos diagnósticos e terapêuticos. A consciência e o conhecimento desses riscos minimizam o dano, otimizando a qualidade da imagens e o uso seguro das radiações ionizantes. Tem-se demonstrado a ocorrência de cataratas radioinduzidas em trabalhadores de laboratórios de cateterismo. Diversos estudos sugerem que pode haver um risco significativo de opacidade do cristalino, caso não se utilizem adequadamente os dispositivos de proteção radiológica. Adicionalmente, esses tipos de procedimentos intervencionistas são realizados na América Latina, geralmente por médicos especialistas, com a colaboração de enfermeiros, tecnólogos e técnicos, que, muitas vezes, não têm formação adequada em proteção radiológica.

We discuss some aspects related to the legal framework, international recommendations and training programs on radiological protection; image quality and equipment; the biological effects and risks of ionizing radiation; lesions in patients and operators; patient's reference levels; occupational dose limit and preventive actions. The use of ionizing radiation involves risks that are justified in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. The awareness and knowledge of these risks minimizes the damage, optimizing the quality of images and safe use of ionizing radiation. There is evidence of radiation-induced cataracts in individuals who work in catheterization laboratories. Several studies suggest there may be a significant risk of lens opacity, if radiological protection devices are not properly used. Additionally, these interventional procedures are performed in Latin America, usually by medical specialists in collaboration with nurses, technologists and technicians, who often do not have adequate training in radiological protection.