» Articles » PMID: 31111862

Outcomes in Patients Treated With Thin-Strut, Very Thin-Strut, or Ultrathin-Strut Drug-Eluting Stents in Small Coronary Vessels: A Prespecified Analysis of the Randomized BIO-RESORT Trial

Abstract

Importance: Stenting small-vessel lesions has an increased adverse cardiovascular event risk. Very thin-strut or ultrathin-strut drug-eluting stents might reduce this risk, but data are scarce.

Objective: To assess the outcome of all-comer patients with small coronary vessel lesions treated with 3 dissimilar types of drug-eluting stents.

Design: This is a prespecified substudy of the Comparison of Biodegradable Polymer and Durable Polymer Drug-eluting Stents in an All Comers Population (BIO-RESORT) trial, an investigator-initiated, randomized, patient-blinded comparative clinical drug-eluting stent trial. Patients treated with ultrathin-strut sirolimus-eluting stents, very thin-strut everolimus-eluting stents, or previous-generation thin-strut zotarolimus-eluting stents were enrolled from December 2012 to August 2015. This multicenter trial was conducted in 4 Dutch centers for cardiac intervention. Of all 3514 all-comer BIO-RESORT participants, 1506 patients with treatment in at least 1 small-vessel lesion (reference vessel <2.5 mm) were included. Data were analyzed between September 2018 and February 2019.

Main Outcomes And Measures: Target lesion failure at 3-year follow-up, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization, analyzed by Kaplan-Meier methods.

Results: In 1452 of 1506 participants (96.4%) (1057 men [70.2%]; 449 women [29.8%]; mean [SD] age, 64.3 [10.4] years), follow-up was available. Target lesion failure occurred in 36 of 525 patients (7.0%) treated with sirolimus-eluting stents, 46 of 496 (9.5%) with everolimus-eluting stents, and 48 of 485 (10.0%) with zotarolimus-eluting stents (sirolimus-eluting vs zotarolimus-eluting hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.44-1.05; P = .08; everolimus-eluting vs zotarolimus-eluting HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.62-1.39; P = .72). There was a difference in target lesion revascularizations between sirolimus-eluting and zotarolimus-eluting stents (2.1% vs 5.3%; HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.20-0.81; P = .009) that emerged after the first year of follow-up (1.0% vs 3.7%; P = .006); multivariate analysis showed that sirolimus-eluting stent implantation was independently associated with a lower target lesion revascularization rate at 3-year follow-up (adjusted HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20-0.85; P = .02). In the everolimus-eluting stents, the revascularization rate was 4.0% (vs zotarolimus-eluting, HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.41-1.34; P = .31). There was no significant between-stent difference in cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis.

Conclusions And Relevance: Patients stented in small coronary vessels experienced fewer repeated revascularizations if treated with ultrathin-strut sirolimus-eluting stents vs previous generation thin strut zotarolimus-eluting stents. Further research is required to evaluate the potential effect of particularly thin stent struts.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01674803.

Citing Articles

Elderly patients treated with Onyx versus Orsiro drug-eluting coronary stents in a randomized clinical trial with long-term follow-up.

van Vliet D, Ploumen E, Pinxterhuis T, Doggen C, Aminian A, Schotborgh C Clin Res Cardiol. 2025; .

PMID: 40035811 DOI: 10.1007/s00392-025-02622-7.


Safety and Efficacy of Two Ultrathin Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in Real-World Practice: Genoss DES Stents Versus Orsiro Stents From a Prospective Registry.

Jeon H, Youn Y, Lee J, Park Y, Son J, Lee J Clin Cardiol. 2024; 47(12):e70060.

PMID: 39691038 PMC: 11652947. DOI: 10.1002/clc.70060.


Is this the end of the ultrathin-strut hypothesis?.

Bangalore S, Finn A EuroIntervention. 2024; 20(10):e625-e626.

PMID: 39230273 PMC: 11100498. DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-E-24-00017.


Small Vessel Coronary Artery Disease: Rationale for Standardized Definition and Critical Appraisal of the Literature.

Sanz-Sanchez J, Chiarito M, Gill G, van der Heijden L, Pina Y, Cortese B J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2024; 1(5):100403.

PMID: 39131458 PMC: 11307687. DOI: 10.1016/j.jscai.2022.100403.


Evaluation of Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer-Coated Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in an All-Comers Patient Population: 1-Year Results of the S-FLEX Slovakia Registry.

Hudec M, Kupec A, Gazdic P Anatol J Cardiol. 2024; 28(3):142-149.

PMID: 38419511 PMC: 10918283. DOI: 10.14744/AnatolJCardiol.2023.3801.


References
1.
van der Heijden L, Kok M, Danse P, Schramm A, Hartmann M, Lowik M . Small-vessel treatment with contemporary newer-generation drug-eluting coronary stents in all-comers: Insights from 2-year DUTCH PEERS (TWENTE II) randomized trial. Am Heart J. 2016; 176:28-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2016.02.020. View

2.
Schunkert H, Harrell L, Palacios I . Implications of small reference vessel diameter in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999; 34(1):40-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0735-1097(99)00181-3. View

3.
Saito S, Ando K, Ito Y, Tobaru T, Yajima J, Kimura T . Two-year results after coronary stenting of small vessels in Japanese population using 2.25-mm diameter sirolimus-eluting stent with bioresorbable polymer: primary and long-term outcomes of CENTURY JSV study. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2018; 34(1):25-33. PMC: 6329726. DOI: 10.1007/s12928-018-0511-3. View

4.
Holmes Jr D, Kereiakes D . The approach to small vessels in the era of drug-eluting stents. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2005; 6 Suppl 1:S31-7. View

5.
El-Hayek G, Bangalore S, Dominguez A, Devireddy C, Jaber W, Kumar G . Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials Comparing Biodegradable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stent to Second-Generation Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 10(5):462-473. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.12.002. View