BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents have limited restenosis and reintervention but are complicated by late and very late thrombosis and accelerated neoatherosclerosis. Alternative or adjunctive technologies are needed to address these limitations.
METHODS: A total of 183 patients with de novo lesions in native coronary arteries were randomized 2:1 to Combo (n = 124) or Taxus Liberté (n = 59). Primary endpoint was 9 month angiographic in-stent late lumen loss and the secondary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse events (MACE) through 5-year follow-up.
RESULTS: Compared with Taxus, after 5 years the Combo stent was associated with similar rates of MACE (18.3% vs. 16.9%, p = .89), cardiac death (0.8% vs. 5.1%, p = .07), myocardial infarction (4.1% vs. 3.4%, p = .81), target lesion (9.4% vs. 10.2%, p = .78), and target vessel revascularization (14.4% vs. 11.9%, p = .73). No cases of definite stent thrombosis were reported in the Combo group. The follow-up rate at 5 years was 97.7%.
CONCLUSION: At 5-year follow-up, the Combo stent remained clinically safe and effective with an overall low rate of MACE comparable to Taxus.
BACKGROUND: The current generation of bioresorbable scaffolds has several limitations, such as thick square struts with large footprints that preclude their deep embedment into the vessel wall, resulting in protrusion into the lumen with microdisturbance of flow. The Mirage sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable microfiber scaffold is designed to address these concerns.
METHODS: In this prospective, single-blind trial, 60 patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to treatment with a Mirage sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable microfiber scaffold or an Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold. The clinical endpoints were assessed at 30 days and at 6 and 12 months. In-device angiographic late loss at 12 months was quantified. Secondary optical coherence tomographic endpoints were assessed post-scaffold implantation at 6 and 12 months.
RESULTS: Median angiographic post-procedural in-scaffold minimal luminal diameters of the Mirage and Absorb devices were 2.38 mm (interquartile range [IQR]: 2.06 to 2.62 mm) and 2.55 mm (IQR: 2.26 to 2.71 mm), respectively; the effect size (d) was -0.29. At 12 months, median angiographic in-scaffold minimal luminal diameters of the Mirage and Absorb devices were not statistically different (1.90 mm [IQR: 1.57 to 2.31 mm] vs. 2.29 mm [IQR: 1.74 to 2.51 mm], d = -0.36). At 12-month follow-up, median in-scaffold late luminal loss with the Mirage and Absorb devices was 0.37 mm (IQR: 0.08 to 0.72 mm) and 0.23 mm (IQR: 0.15 to 0.37 mm), respectively (d = 0.20). On optical coherence tomography, post-procedural diameter stenosis with the Mirage was 11.2 ± 7.1%, which increased to 27.4 ± 12.4% at 6 months and remained stable (31.8 ± 12.9%) at 1 year, whereas the post-procedural optical coherence tomographic diameter stenosis with the Absorb was 8.4 ± 6.6%, which increased to 16.6 ± 8.9% and remained stable (21.2 ± 9.9%) at 1-year follow-up (Mirage vs. Absorb: dpost-procedure = 0.41, d6 months = 1.00, d12 months = 0.92). Angiographic median in-scaffold diameter stenosis was significantly different between study groups at 12 months (28.6% [IQR: 21.0% to 40.7%] for the Mirage, 18.2% [IQR: 13.1% to 31.6%] for the Absorb, d = 0.39). Device- and patient-oriented composite endpoints were comparable between the 2 study groups.
CONCLUSIONS: At 12 months, angiographic in-scaffold late loss was not statistically different between the Mirage and Absorb devices, although diameter stenosis on angiography and on optical coherence tomography was significantly higher with the Mirage than with the Absorb. The technique of implantation was suboptimal for both devices, and future trials should incorporate optical coherence tomographic guidance to allow optimal implantation and appropriate assessment of the new technology, considering the novel mechanical properties of the Mirage.
BACKGROUND: Treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains challenging. PCBs are an established treatment option outside the United States with a Class I, Level of Evidence: A recommendation in the European guidelines. However, their efficacy is better in bare-metal stent (BMS) ISR compared with drug-eluting stent (DES) ISR.
METHODS: Fifty patients with DES ISR were enrolled in a randomized, multicenter trial to compare a novel SCB (SeQuent SCB, 4 μg/mm2) with a clinically proven PCB (SeQuent Please Neo, 3 μg/mm2) in coronary DES ISR. The primary endpoint was angiographic late lumen loss at 6 months. Secondary endpoints included procedural success, major adverse cardiovascular events, and individual clinical endpoints such as stent thrombosis, cardiac death, target lesion myocardial infarction, clinically driven target lesion revascularization, and binary restenosis.
RESULTS: Quantitative coronary angiography revealed no differences in baseline parameters. After 6 months, in-segment late lumen loss was 0.21 ± 0.54 mm in the PCB group versus 0.17 ± 0.55 mm in the SCB group (p = NS; per-protocol analysis). Clinical events up to 12 months also did not differ between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: This first-in-man comparison of a novel SCB with a crystalline coating shows similar angiographic outcomes in the treatment of coronary DES ISR compared with a clinically proven PCB. (Treatment of Coronary In-Stent Restenosis by a Sirolimus [Rapamycin] Coated Balloon or a Paclitaxel Coated Balloon [FIM LIMUS DCB]; NCT02996318).