Two-Year Real World Clinical Outcomes after Intravascular Imaging Device Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Ultrathin-Strut Biodegradable-Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent

Sho Nakao; Takayuki Ishihara; Takuya Tsujimura; Yosuke Hata; Naoko Higashino; Masaya Kusuda; Toshiaki Mano

doi:10.1101/2023.07.06.23292324

Abstract

Background Biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) have excellent technology, including ultrathin struts and nanocoating that suppresses metal ion elution, and have demonstrated improved results in numerous large clinical trials. However, many of these reports have not used intravascular imaging, and there is little clinical data on imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) 1 year after the implantation when the polymer disappears. The current study investigated the clinical outcomes 2 years after imaging-guided PCI with BP-SES and durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES).

Methods We retrospectively analyzed 2455 patients who underwent successful PCI with BP-SES or DP-EES between September 2011 and March 2021, and compared 2-year clinical outcomes of BP-SES (459 patients) with DP-EES (1996 patients). The outcome measures were target lesion revascularization (TLR) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis. Multivariate analysis using Cox proportional hazard model and inverse probability weighting (IPW) analysis based on the propensity score were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes.

Results The 2-year cumulative incidences of TLR (BP-SES: 4.9% vs. DP-SES: 6.1%, p=0.304) and MACE (10.3% vs. 12.5%, p=0.159) were similar between the two groups. Multivariable and IPW analysis revealed the risks of TLR (p=0.388 and p=0.500) and MACE (p=0.139 and p=0.083) also had no significant difference. There was a significant interaction between none/mild and moderate/severe calcification with respect to MACE and TLR (adjusted p for interaction=0.036 and 0.029, respectively). The risk of MACE was significantly lower in BP-SES than in DP-EES in the lesions with none/mild calcification (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.30-0.91), while it was similar in those with moderate/severe calcification (aHR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.58-1.55).

Conclusions Compared with DP-EES, BP-SES demonstrated durable 2-year clinical outcomes. However, BP-SES showed better clinical performance than DP-EES for lesions with none/mild calcification.

What is Known

Durable 1-year results of biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES: Orsiro) for complex lesions such as acute coronary syndrome (ACS), small vessels or calcified lesions have been reported compared with contemporary thin-strut (81 mm) durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EESs, Xience).
There are few reports comparing the long-term clinical outcomes of BP-SES and DP-EES in intravascular imaging device guided-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), although imaging-guided PCI has been reported to have better results than angiography-guided PCI.

What the Study Adds

BP-SES demonstrated comparable 2-year results after imaging-guided PCI with DP-EES.
BP-SES demonstrated a lower risk of MACE in none/mild calcification and a similar risk in moderate/severe calcification as DP-EES.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

There is no external funding received.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Not Applicable

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

approved by the Ethics Committee of Kansai Rosai Hospital (approval no. 15D084g)

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Not Applicable

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Not Applicable

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Not Applicable