Robbert J de Winter1, Yuki Katagiri1, Taku Asano1, Krzysztof P Milewski2, Philipp Lurz3, Pawel Buszman4, Gillian A J Jessurun5, Karel T Koch1, Roland P T Troquay6, Bas J B Hamer7, Ton Oude Ophuis8, Jochen Wöhrle9, Rafał Wyderka10, Guillaume Cayla11, Sjoerd H Hofma12, Sébastien Levesque13, Aleksander Żurakowski14, Dieter Fischer15, Maciej Kośmider16, Pascal Goube17, E Karin Arkenbout18, Michel Noutsias19, Markus W Ferrari20, Yoshinobu Onuma21, William Wijns22, Patrick W Serruys23. 1. Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 2. Oddzial Kardiologii Inwazyjnej, Elektrofizjologii i Elektrostymulacji PAKS, American Heart of Poland SA, Tychy, Poland. 3. Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiology, University of Leipzig-Heart Center, Leipzig, Germany. 4. Center for Cardiovascular Research and Development, American Heart of Poland, Katowice, Poland. 5. Department of Cardiology, Treant Zorggroep, Emmen, Netherlands. 6. VieCuri Medical Center for Northern Limburg, Venlo, Netherlands. 7. Meander Medisch Centrum, Amersfoort, Netherlands. 8. Department of Cardiology, Canisius Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis, Nijmegen, Netherlands. 9. Universitätsklinikum Ulm, Ulm, Germany. 10. Zgierskie Centrum Kardiologii Med-Pro, Zgierz, Poland. 11. Department of Cardiology, CHU Nîmes, Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France. 12. Medisch Centrum Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, Netherlands. 13. CHU de Poitiers, Poitiers, France. 14. Małopolskie Centrum Sercowo-Naczyniowe PAKS, Chrzanow, Poland. 15. Universitätsklinikum Münster, Münster, Germany. 16. Oddzial Kardiologiczny PAKS, Bełchatów, Poland. 17. CH Sud Francilien Corbeil Essonne, Corbeil Essonnes, France. 18. Department of Cardiology, Tergooi Hospital, Blaricum, Netherlands. 19. Department of Cardiology, Pneumonology and Intensive Care Medicine, Clinic for Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Jena, Friedrich-Schiller-University, Jena, Germany. 20. Dr Horst Schmidt Kliniken Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, Germany. 21. ThoraxCenter, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands. 22. Cardiovascular Research Center Aalst, Aalst, Belgium; National University of Ireland Galway, The Lambe Institute for Translational Medicine and CURAM, Galway, Ireland. 23. National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK. Electronic address: patrick.w.j.c.serruys@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: MiStent is a drug-eluting stent with a fully absorbable polymer coating containing and embedding a microcrystalline form of sirolimus into the vessel wall. It was developed to overcome the limitation of current durable polymer drug-eluting stents eluting amorphous sirolimus. The clinical effect of MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer drug-eluting stents has not been investigated in a large randomised trial in an all-comer population. METHODS: We did a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, phase 3 study (DESSOLVE III) at 20 hospitals in Germany, France, Netherlands, and Poland. Eligible participants were any patients aged at least 18 years who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in a lesion and had a reference vessel diameter of 2·50-3·75 mm. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to implantation of either a sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable polymer stent (MiStent) or an everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent (Xience). Randomisation was done by local investigators via web-based software with random blocks according to centre. The primary endpoint was a non-inferiority comparison of a device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE)-cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation-between the groups at 12 months after the procedure assessed by intention-to-treat. A margin of 4·0% was defined for non-inferiority of the MiStent group compared with the Xience group. All participants were included in the safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02385279. FINDINGS: Between March 20, and Dec 3, 2015, we randomly assigned 1398 patients with 2030 lesions; 703 patients with 1037 lesions were assigned to MiStent, of whom 697 received the index procedure, and 695 patients with 993 lesions were asssigned to Xience, of whom 690 received the index procedure. At 12 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in 40 patients (5·8%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and in 45 patients (6·5%) in the everolimus-eluting stent group (absolute difference -0·8% [95% CI -3·3 to 1·8], pnon-inferiority=0·0001). Procedural complications occurred in 12 patients (1·7%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and ten patients (1·4%) in the everolimus-eluting stent group; no clinical adverse events could be attributed to these dislodgements through a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. The rate of stent thrombosis, a safety indicator, did not differ between groups and was low in both treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: The sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer stent was non-inferior to the everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent for a device-oriented composite clinical endpoint at 12 months in an all-comer population. MiStent seems a reasonable alternative to other stents in clinical practice. FUNDING: The European Cardiovascular Research Institute, Micell Technologies (Durham, NC, USA), and Stentys (Paris, France).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: MiStent is a drug-eluting stent with a fully absorbable polymer coating containing and embedding a microcrystalline form of sirolimus into the vessel wall. It was developed to overcome the limitation of current durable polymer drug-eluting stents eluting amorphous sirolimus. The clinical effect of MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer drug-eluting stents has not been investigated in a large randomised trial in an all-comer population. METHODS: We did a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, phase 3 study (DESSOLVE III) at 20 hospitals in Germany, France, Netherlands, and Poland. Eligible participants were any patients aged at least 18 years who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in a lesion and had a reference vessel diameter of 2·50-3·75 mm. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to implantation of either a sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable polymer stent (MiStent) or an everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent (Xience). Randomisation was done by local investigators via web-based software with random blocks according to centre. The primary endpoint was a non-inferiority comparison of a device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE)-cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation-between the groups at 12 months after the procedure assessed by intention-to-treat. A margin of 4·0% was defined for non-inferiority of the MiStent group compared with the Xience group. All participants were included in the safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02385279. FINDINGS: Between March 20, and Dec 3, 2015, we randomly assigned 1398 patients with 2030 lesions; 703 patients with 1037 lesions were assigned to MiStent, of whom 697 received the index procedure, and 695 patients with 993 lesions were asssigned to Xience, of whom 690 received the index procedure. At 12 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in 40 patients (5·8%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and in 45 patients (6·5%) in the everolimus-eluting stent group (absolute difference -0·8% [95% CI -3·3 to 1·8], pnon-inferiority=0·0001). Procedural complications occurred in 12 patients (1·7%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and ten patients (1·4%) in the everolimus-eluting stent group; no clinical adverse events could be attributed to these dislodgements through a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. The rate of stent thrombosis, a safety indicator, did not differ between groups and was low in both treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: The sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer stent was non-inferior to the everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent for a device-oriented composite clinical endpoint at 12 months in an all-comer population. MiStent seems a reasonable alternative to other stents in clinical practice. FUNDING: The European Cardiovascular Research Institute, Micell Technologies (Durham, NC, USA), and Stentys (Paris, France).
Authors: Abraham R Tzafriri; Fernando Garcia-Polite; Xiaojian Li; John Keating; Josep-Maria Balaguer; Brett Zani; Lynn Bailey; Peter Markham; Timothy C Kiorpes; Wenda Carlyle; Elazer R Edelman Journal: J Control Release Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 9.776
Authors: Mahesh V Madhavan; James P Howard; Azim Naqvi; Ori Ben-Yehuda; Bjorn Redfors; Megha Prasad; Bahira Shahim; Martin B Leon; Sripal Bangalore; Gregg W Stone; Yousif Ahmad Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2021-07-15 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Anna K Winther; Betina Fejerskov; Marja Ter Meer; Najah B S Jensen; Ross Dillion; Jeremy E Schaffer; Rona Chandrawati; Molly M Stevens; Leo J Schultze Kool; Ulf Simonsen; Alexander N Zelikin Journal: ACS Appl Mater Interfaces Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 9.229
Authors: Selina Vlieger; Gian B Danzi; Floris Kauer; Rohit M Oemrawsingh; Sinisa Stojkovic; Alexander J J IJsselmuiden; Helen Routledge; Peep Laanmets; Marco Roffi; Ole Fröbert; Pascual Baello; Adrian Wlodarczak; Angel Puentes; Jawed Polad; David Hildick-Smith Journal: Coron Artery Dis Date: 2021-08-01 Impact factor: 1.439