BACKGROUND: The next iteration of drug-eluting stents (DESs) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has focused on bioresorbable polymers and thin struts. The Alex Plus DES is a new-generation sirolimus-eluting device with 70-μm cobalt chromium struts, a 5-μm bioresorbable polymer and a very small profile. Despite such favorable features, limited data are available to estimate the risk-benefit profile of Alex Plus. We aimed at comparing the effectiveness of Alex Plus in real-world practice. METHODS: Retrospective clinical data on patients treated with Alex Plus at our institutions were collected and clinical outcome data over follow-up were obtained, comparing them with those of subjects receiving Xience, a leading DES with permanent polymer. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients (126 lesions) treated with Alex Plus and 753 subjects (1020 lesions) receiving Xience were included. Baseline and procedural features were largely similar in the 2 groups, with the notable exception of age, sex, and left circumflex coronary artery as the target vessel. Clinical follow-up showed that patients with Alex Plus had a significantly higher risk of major adverse clinical event (MACE), mainly driven by an excess in repeat PCI (hazard ratio, 4.81; 95% confidence interval, 2.83-8.20; P<.001). Even after propensity-score matching, Alex Plus was associated with an increased risk of MACE (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our clinical experience to date with Alex Plus has been disappointing, despite the favorable promises. Further improvements are likely needed in the Alex Plus DES, most likely in drug delivery, before this device is considered for routine clinical use in complex patients or lesions.
BACKGROUND: The next iteration of drug-eluting stents (DESs) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has focused on bioresorbable polymers and thin struts. The Alex Plus DES is a new-generation sirolimus-eluting device with 70-μm cobalt chromium struts, a 5-μm bioresorbable polymer and a very small profile. Despite such favorable features, limited data are available to estimate the risk-benefit profile of Alex Plus. We aimed at comparing the effectiveness of Alex Plus in real-world practice. METHODS: Retrospective clinical data on patients treated with Alex Plus at our institutions were collected and clinical outcome data over follow-up were obtained, comparing them with those of subjects receiving Xience, a leading DES with permanent polymer. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients (126 lesions) treated with Alex Plus and 753 subjects (1020 lesions) receiving Xience were included. Baseline and procedural features were largely similar in the 2 groups, with the notable exception of age, sex, and left circumflex coronary artery as the target vessel. Clinical follow-up showed that patients with Alex Plus had a significantly higher risk of major adverse clinical event (MACE), mainly driven by an excess in repeat PCI (hazard ratio, 4.81; 95% confidence interval, 2.83-8.20; P<.001). Even after propensity-score matching, Alex Plus was associated with an increased risk of MACE (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our clinical experience to date with Alex Plus has been disappointing, despite the favorable promises. Further improvements are likely needed in the Alex Plus DES, most likely in drug delivery, before this device is considered for routine clinical use in complex patients or lesions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Alex Plus stent; Xience; drug-eluting stent; percutaneous coronary intervention