No abstract

No abstract

Background: The use of poly- l -lactide acid-based bioresorbable scaffolds is limited in daily clinical practice because of safety concerns and lack of physiological benefit. Magnesium-based bioresorbable scaffold (MgBRS) presents a short resorption period (<1 year) and have the potential of being thromboresistant and exhibiting early restoration of vasomotor function. To date, however, no randomized clinical trial has investigated the performance of MgBRS. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the in-stent/scaffold vasomotion between MgBRS and permanent metallic sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) at 12-month follow-up in ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients. Methods: This investigator-driven, multicenter, randomized, single-blind, controlled trial randomized ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients 1:1 to SES or MgBRS at 11 academic centers. The primary end point was the rate of increase (≥3%) after nitroglycerin in mean lumen diameter of the in-stent/scaffold segment at 12 months with superiority of MgBRS over SES in the as-treated population. The main secondary end points included angiographic parameters of restenosis, device-oriented composite end point, their individual components, and device thrombosis rate. Besides, endothelial-dependent vasomotor response to acetylcholine (ie, endothelial function) was also assessed in a subgroup of patients (n=69). Results: Between June 2017 and June 2018, 150 ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients were randomized (MgBRS, n=74; SES, n=76). At 1 year, the primary end point was significantly higher in the MgBRS arm (56.5% versus 33.8%; P =0.010). Conversely, late lumen loss was significantly lower in the SES group (in-segment: 0.39±0.49mm versus 0.02±0.27mm, P <0.001; in-device: 0.61±0.55mm versus 0.06±0.21mm; P <0.001). The device-oriented composite end point was higher in the MgBRS arm driven by an increase in ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization rate (12[16.2%] versus 4[5.2%], P =0.030). Definite thrombosis rate was similar between groups (1[1.4%] in the MgBRS arm versus 2[2.6%] in the SES group; P =1.0). Endothelial function assessment at device segment evidenced a more pronounced vasoconstrictive response to maximal dose of acetylcholine in the MgBRS arm (−8.3±3.5% versus −2.4±1.3% in the SES group, P =0.003). Conclusions: When compared to SES, MgBRS demonstrated a higher capacity of vasomotor response to pharmacological agents (either endothelium-independent or endothelium-dependent) at 1 year. However, MgBRS was associated with a lower angiographic efficacy, a higher rate of target lesion revascularization, without thrombotic safety concerns. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT03234348.

No abstract

Aim Patients with diabetes mellitus are at high risk of adverse events after percutaneous revascularization, with no differences in outcomes between most contemporary drug-eluting stents. The Cre8 EVO stent releases a formulation of sirolimus with an amphiphilic carrier from laser-dug wells, and has shown clinical benefits in diabetes. We aimed to compare Cre8 EVO stents to Resolute Onyx stents (a contemporary polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stent) in patients with diabetes. Methods and results We did an investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded trial at 23 sites in Spain. Eligible patients had diabetes and required percutaneous coronary intervention. A total of 1175 patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive Cre8 EVO or Resolute Onyx stents. The primary endpoint was target-lesion failure, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization at 1-year follow-up. The trial had a non-inferiority design with a 4% margin for the primary endpoint. A superiority analysis was planned if non-inferiority was confirmed. There were 106 primary events, 42 (7.2%) in the Cre8 EVO group and 64 (10.9%) in the Resolute Onyx group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.96; pnon-inferiority &lt;0.001; psuperiority = 0.030]. Among the secondary endpoints, Cre8 EVO stents had significantly lower rate than Resolute Onyx stents of target-vessel failure (7.5% vs 11.1%, HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.99; p = 0.042). Probable or definite stent thrombosis and all-cause death were not significantly different between groups. Conclusions In patients with diabetes, Cre8 EVO stents were non-inferior to Resolute Onyx stents with regard to target-lesion failure composite outcome. An exploratory analysis for superiority at 1 year suggests that the Cre8 EVO stents might be superior to Resolute Onyx stents with regard to the same outcome. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03321032.