OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare clinical outcome of polymer-free amphilimus-eluting stent (PF-AES) versus biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent (BD-BES) in "all-comer" diabetes mellitus (DM) and non-DM patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND: The PF-AES has shown promising preliminary results in patients with DM. METHODS: Data from 2 multicentre-national registries (the ASTUTE and the INSPIRE-1) were used to analyse 1776 patients stratified in non-DM and DM. A double 1:1 propensity-score matched analysis (PF-AES vs. BD-BES) was performed in each group to adjust for clinical and procedural characteristics. Primary stent-efficacy and stent-safety endpoints were 1-year target-lesion revascularization (TLR) and target-lesion failure (TLF, composed of cardiac-death, target-vessel myocardial infarction and any TLR). RESULTS: After propensity-score matching, 850 patients were stratified as non-DM (425 PF-AES/425 BD-BES) and 480 as DM patients (240 PF-AES/240 BD-BES). Both TLF (20 of 425 [5%] vs. 24 of 425 [6%]; Plog-rank=0.527) and TLR (9 of 425 [2%] vs. 18 of 425 [4%]; Plog-rank=0.079) were similar between PF-AES and BD-BES in non-DM patients. In DM, TLF (12 of 240 [5%] vs. 31 of 240 [13%]; Plog-rank=0.002) and TLR (9 of 240 [4%] vs. 21 of 240 [9%]; Plog-rank=0.019) were significantly lower in PF-AES compared to BD-BES. Upon multivariate analysis, the most powerful predictors of TLF were chronic kidney disease in non-DM (OR 4.24, 95% CI: 2.07-8.70, p<0.001) and stent type in DM patients (OR 2.76, 1.36-5.56, p=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: This matched-cohort study suggests that PF-AES has better safety and efficacy profile than BD-BES in patients with DM.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare clinical outcome of polymer-free amphilimus-eluting stent (PF-AES) versus biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent (BD-BES) in "all-comer" diabetes mellitus (DM) and non-DMpatients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND: The PF-AES has shown promising preliminary results in patients with DM. METHODS: Data from 2 multicentre-national registries (the ASTUTE and the INSPIRE-1) were used to analyse 1776 patients stratified in non-DM and DM. A double 1:1 propensity-score matched analysis (PF-AES vs. BD-BES) was performed in each group to adjust for clinical and procedural characteristics. Primary stent-efficacy and stent-safety endpoints were 1-year target-lesion revascularization (TLR) and target-lesion failure (TLF, composed of cardiac-death, target-vessel myocardial infarction and any TLR). RESULTS: After propensity-score matching, 850 patients were stratified as non-DM (425 PF-AES/425 BD-BES) and 480 as DMpatients (240 PF-AES/240 BD-BES). Both TLF (20 of 425 [5%] vs. 24 of 425 [6%]; Plog-rank=0.527) and TLR (9 of 425 [2%] vs. 18 of 425 [4%]; Plog-rank=0.079) were similar between PF-AES and BD-BES in non-DMpatients. In DM, TLF (12 of 240 [5%] vs. 31 of 240 [13%]; Plog-rank=0.002) and TLR (9 of 240 [4%] vs. 21 of 240 [9%]; Plog-rank=0.019) were significantly lower in PF-AES compared to BD-BES. Upon multivariate analysis, the most powerful predictors of TLF were chronic kidney disease in non-DM (OR 4.24, 95% CI: 2.07-8.70, p<0.001) and stent type in DMpatients (OR 2.76, 1.36-5.56, p=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: This matched-cohort study suggests that PF-AES has better safety and efficacy profile than BD-BES in patients with DM.
Authors: Maayan Konigstein; Mahesh V Madhavan; Ori Ben-Yehuda; Hussein M Rahim; Iva Srdanovic; Fotis Gkargkoulas; Ghazaleh Mehdipoor; Evan Shlofmitz; Akiko Maehara; Björn Redfors; Ankita K Gore; Thomas McAndrew; Gregg W Stone; Ziad A Ali Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2019-04-12 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Rafael Romaguera; Pablo Salinas; Josep Gomez-Lara; Salvatore Brugaletta; Antonio Gómez-Menchero; Miguel A Romero; Sergio García-Blas; Raymundo Ocaranza; Pascual Bordes; Marcelo Jiménez Kockar; Neus Salvatella; Victor A Jiménez-Díaz; Mar Alameda; Ramiro Trillo; Dae Hyun Lee; Pedro Martín; María López-Benito; Alfonso Freites; Virginia Pascual-Tejerina; Felipe Hernández-Hernández; Bruno García Del Blanco; Mohsen Mohandes; Francisco Bosa; Eduardo Pinar; Gerard Roura; Josep Comin-Colet; Antonio Fernández-Ortiz; Carlos Macaya; Xavier Rossello; Manel Sabate; Stuart J Pocock; Joan A Gómez-Hospital Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Hee Hwa Ho; Dasdo Antonius Sinaga; Mohd Kamal Mohd Arshad; Sazzli Kasim; Jin Hyun Lee; Deanna Zhi Lin Khoo; Kwok Kong Loh; Fahim Haider Jafary; Paul Jau Lueng Ong; Simon Soo Siong Lo Journal: Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc Date: 2020-01-23
Authors: Rik Rozemeijer; Ivar G van Muiden; Stefan Koudstaal; Geert E Leenders; Leo Timmers; Saskia Z Rittersma; Adriaan O Kraaijeveld; Pieter A Doevendans; Michiel Voskuil; Pieter R Stella Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2019-01-02 Impact factor: 2.692