Umirolimus

Abstract: Context The efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents remains controversial in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Objective To compare stents eluting biolimus from a biodegradable polymer with bare-metal stents in primary PCI. Design, Setting, and Patients A prospective, randomized, single-blinded, controlled trial of 1161 patients presenting with STEMI at 11 sites in Europe and Israel between September 19, 2009, and January 25, 2011. Clinical follow-up was performed at 1 and 12 months. Intervention Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive the biolimus-eluting stent (n = 575) or the bare-metal stent (n = 582). Main Outcome Measures Primary end point was the rate of major adverse cardiac events, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel–related reinfarction, and ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization at 1 year. Results Major adverse cardiac events at 1 year occurred in 24 patients (4.3%) receiving biolimus-eluting stents with biodegradable polymer and 49 patients (8.7%) receiving bare-metal stents (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.80; P = .004). The difference was driven by a lower risk of target vessel–related reinfarction (3 [0.5%] vs 15 [2.7%]; HR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06-0.69; P = .01) and ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization (9 [1.6%] vs 32 [5.7%]; HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.13-0.59; P < .001) in patients receiving biolimus-eluting stents compared with those receiving bare-metal stents. Rates of cardiac death were not significantly different (16 [2.9%] vs 20 [3.5%], P = .53). Definite stent thrombosis occurred in 5 patients (0.9%) treated with biolimus-eluting stents and 12 patients (2.1%; HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.15-1.19; P = .10) treated with bare-metal stents. Conclusion Compared with a bare-metal stent, the use of biolimus-eluting stents with a biodegradable polymer resulted in a lower rate of the composite of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year among patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI.

Abstract: Background The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of biodegradable-polymer (BP) drug-eluting stents (DES), bare metal stents (BMS), and durable-polymer DES in patients undergoing coronary revascularization, we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis using a Bayesian framework. Methods and results Study stents included BMS, paclitaxel-eluting (PES), sirolimus-eluting (SES), endeavor zotarolimus-eluting (ZES-E), cobalt–chromium everolimus-eluting (CoCr-EES), platinium–chromium everolimus-eluting (PtCr-EES), resolute zotarolimus-eluting (ZES-R), and BP biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES). After a systematic electronic search, 113 trials with 90 584 patients were selected. The principal endpoint was definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST) defined according to the Academic Research Consortium within 1 year. Results Biodegradable polymer-biolimus-eluting stents [OR, 0.56; 95% credible interval (CrI), 0.33–0.90], SES (OR, 0.53; 95% CrI, 0.38–0.73), CoCr-EES (OR, 0.34; 95% CrI, 0.23–0.52), and PtCr-EES (OR, 0.31; 95% CrI, 0.10–0.90) were all superior to BMS in terms of definite or probable ST within 1 year. Cobalt–chromium everolimus-eluting stents demonstrated the lowest risk of ST of all stents at all times after stent implantation. Biodegradable polymer-biolimus-eluting stents was associated with a higher risk of definite or probable ST than CoCr-EES (OR, 1.72; 95% CrI, 1.04–2.98). All DES reduced the need for repeat revascularization, and all but PES reduced the risk of myocardial infarction compared with BMS. Conclusions All DESs but PES and ZES-E were superior to BMS in terms of ST within 1 year. Cobalt–chromium everolimus-eluting stents was safer than any DES even including BP-BES. Our results suggest that not only the biodegradability of polymer, but the optimal combination of stent alloy, design, strut thickness, polymer, and drug all combined determine the safety of DES.

Abstract: AIMS The long-term outcomes of biolimus-eluting stents (BESs) with biodegradable polymer as compared with bare-metal stent (BMS) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remain unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS We performed a 5-year clinical follow-up of 1157 patients (BES: N = 575 and BMS: N = 582) included in the randomized COMFORTABLE AMI trial. Serial intracoronary imaging of stented segments using both intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography performed at baseline and 13 months follow-up were analysed in 103 patients. At 5 years, BES reduced the risk of major adverse cardiac events [MACE; hazard ratio (HR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.39-0.79, P = 0.001], driven by lower risks for target vessel-related reinfarction (HR 0.44, 95% CI: 0.22-0.87, P = 0.02) and ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularization (HR 0.41, 95% CI: 0.25-0.66, P < 0.001). Definite stent thrombosis (ST) was recorded in 2.2% and 3.9% (HR 0.57, 95% CI: 0.28-1.16, P = 0.12) with no differences in rates of very late definite ST (1.3% vs. 1.6%, P = 0.77). Optical coherence tomography showed no difference in the frequency of malapposed stent struts at follow-up (BES 0.08% vs. BMS 0.02%, P = 0.10). Uncovered stent struts were rarely observed but more frequent in BES (2.1% vs. 0.15%, P < 0.001). In the IVUS analysis, there was no positive remodelling in either group (external elastic membrane area change BES: -0.63 mm2, 95% CI: -1.44 to 0.39 vs. BMS -1.11 mm2, 95% CI: -2.27 to 0.04, P = 0.07). CONCLUSION Compared with BMS, the implantation of biodegradable polymer-coated BES resulted in a lower 5-year rate of MACE in patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. At 13 months, vascular healing in treated culprit lesions was almost complete irrespective of stent type. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00962416.

Abstract: BackgroundBiodegradable polymer drug eluting stents (BP-DES) have been developed to overcome the limitations of first generation durable polymer DES (DP-DES) but the clinical results of different BP-DES are not consistent. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of BP-DES and DP-DES in the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD).Methods and resultsOnline databases including MEDLINE were searched for studies comparing BP-DES and DP-DES for obstructive CAD that reported rates for overall mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), late stent thrombosis (LST), target lesion revascularization (TLR) and late lumen loss (LLL) with a follow-up of ≥6 months. Ten studies (5834 patients) with a 1-year median follow-up were included in the meta-analysis. When comparing patients treated with DP-DES and BP-DES those treated with BP-DES had lower LLL (in-stent: weighted mean difference (WMD) −0.10 mm, 95% CI = −0.17 to −0.03 mm, p = 0.004; in-segment: WMD −0.06 mm, 95% CI = −0.10 to −0.01 mm, p = 0.01) with ...