UpToDate
Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

Bioresorbable polymer or scaffold drug-eluting coronary artery stents

Authors
Donald Cutlip, MD
J Dawn Abbott, MD, FACC
Section Editor
Stephan Windecker, MD
Deputy Editor
Gordon M Saperia, MD, FACC

INTRODUCTION

Currently available metallic drug-eluting stents (DES) with a durable polymer have shown improved safety outcomes and at least equal effectiveness compared with first generation DES. The results have been achieved in the setting of at least 6 to 12 months dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). A low but persistent risk of restenosis and stent thrombosis and increased risk of bleeding with prolonged DAPT remain areas of concern.   This topic will present studies of coronary artery stent types including DES with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. Stent types that have been approved for use are discussed elsewhere. (See "Clinical use of intracoronary bare metal stents" and "Comparison of drug-eluting intracoronary stents".)

DEFINITIONS

The terms "bioresorbable" (also called biodegradeable) and "bioabsorbable" are used in this topic. Bioresorbable refers to the complete breakdown and removal of a material over time and often by a known mechanism. Bioabsorbable refers to incomplete breakdown; the material may be partially digested and remain indefinitely in local tissue. Stent material and polymer may be bioresorbable or bioabsorbable.

BIORESORBABLE POLYMER DES

A potential method to decrease the rate of late stent thrombosis with drug-eluting stents (DES) is to shorten the length of exposure to the drug-containing polymer. (See "Coronary artery stent thrombosis: Incidence and risk factors" and "Coronary artery stent thrombosis: Clinical presentation and management".)

Under these circumstances, the polymer is removed as a potential chronic inflammatory stimulus, and the patient is left in effect with a bare-metal stent. The majority of currently approved DES have a durable polymer, which remains permanently on the stent after the drug is eluted. The polymer itself may result in vascular inflammation or delay endothelialization and healing, therefore contributing to the risk of stent thrombosis. In October 2015, the SYNERGY stent became the first bioresorbable (biodegradable) polymer DES approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration.

Although bioresorbable polymer DES have theoretical advantages over durable polymer DES, the evidence from randomized clinical trials, presented below, suggests that they are comparable to second generation DES (eg, everolimus or zotarolimus) in terms of efficacy and safety at two years.

      
To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information on subscription options, click below on the option that best describes you:

Subscribers log in here

Literature review current through: Sep 2017. | This topic last updated: Jul 31, 2017.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2017 UpToDate, Inc.
References
Top
  1. Windecker S, Serruys PW, Wandel S, et al. Biolimus-eluting stent with biodegradable polymer versus sirolimus-eluting stent with durable polymer for coronary revascularisation (LEADERS): a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2008; 372:1163.
  2. Stefanini GG, Kalesan B, Serruys PW, et al. Long-term clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease (LEADERS): 4 year follow-up of a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2011; 378:1940.
  3. Christiansen EH, Jensen LO, Thayssen P, et al. Biolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer-coated stent versus durable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent in unselected patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (SORT OUT V): a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2013; 381:661.
  4. Chevalier B, Silber S, Park SJ, et al. Randomized comparison of the Nobori Biolimus A9-eluting coronary stent with the Taxus Liberté paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent in patients with stenosis in native coronary arteries: the NOBORI 1 trial--Phase 2. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2009; 2:188.
  5. Smits PC, Hofma S, Togni M, et al. Abluminal biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (COMPARE II): a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2013; 381:651.
  6. Natsuaki M, Kozuma K, Morimoto T, et al. Biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent: a randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 62:181.
  7. Kaiser C, Galatius S, Jeger R, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stents: main results of the Basel Stent Kosten-Effektivitäts Trial-PROspective Validation Examination II (BASKET-PROVE II), a randomized, controlled noninferiority 2-year outcome trial. Circulation 2015; 131:74.
  8. Byrne RA, Kastrati A, Massberg S, et al. Biodegradable polymer versus permanent polymer drug-eluting stents and everolimus- versus sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: 3-year outcomes from a randomized clinical trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 58:1325.
  9. Pilgrim T, Heg D, Roffi M, et al. Ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent for percutaneous coronary revascularisation (BIOSCIENCE): a randomised, single-blind, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2014; 384:2111.
  10. Meredith IT, Verheye S, Dubois CL, et al. Primary endpoint results of the EVOLVE trial: a randomized evaluation of a novel bioabsorbable polymer-coated, everolimus-eluting coronary stent. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 59:1362.
  11. Kereiakes DJ, Meredith IT, Windecker S, et al. Efficacy and safety of a novel bioabsorbable polymer-coated, everolimus-eluting coronary stent: the EVOLVE II Randomized Trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2015; 8.
  12. von Birgelen C, Kok MM, van der Heijden LC, et al. Very thin strut biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents in allcomers with coronary artery disease (BIO-RESORT): a three-arm, randomised, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2016; 388:2607.
  13. Stefanini GG, Byrne RA, Serruys PW, et al. Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents reduce the risk of stent thrombosis at 4 years in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from the ISAR-TEST 3, ISAR-TEST 4, and LEADERS randomized trials. Eur Heart J 2012; 33:1214.
  14. El-Hayek G, Bangalore S, Casso Dominguez A, et al. Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials Comparing Biodegradable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stent to Second-Generation Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2017; 10:462.
  15. Mehilli J, Kastrati A, Wessely R, et al. Randomized trial of a nonpolymer-based rapamycin-eluting stent versus a polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stent for the reduction of late lumen loss. Circulation 2006; 113:273.
  16. Urban P, Meredith IT, Abizaid A, et al. Polymer-free Drug-Coated Coronary Stents in Patients at High Bleeding Risk. N Engl J Med 2015; 373:2038.
  17. Garot P, Morice MC, Tresukosol D, et al. 2-Year Outcomes of High Bleeding Risk Patients After Polymer-Free Drug-Coated Stents. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 69:162.
  18. Ellis SG, Kereiakes DJ, Metzger DC, et al. Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds for Coronary Artery Disease. N Engl J Med 2015; 373:1905.
  19. Tamai H, Igaki K, Kyo E, et al. Initial and 6-month results of biodegradable poly-l-lactic acid coronary stents in humans. Circulation 2000; 102:399.
  20. Erbel R, Di Mario C, Bartunek J, et al. Temporary scaffolding of coronary arteries with bioabsorbable magnesium stents: a prospective, non-randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 2007; 369:1869.
  21. Nishio S, Kosuga K, Igaki K, et al. Long-Term (>10 Years) clinical outcomes of first-in-human biodegradable poly-l-lactic acid coronary stents: Igaki-Tamai stents. Circulation 2012; 125:2343.
  22. Ormiston JA, Serruys PW, Regar E, et al. A bioabsorbable everolimus-eluting coronary stent system for patients with single de-novo coronary artery lesions (ABSORB): a prospective open-label trial. Lancet 2008; 371:899.
  23. Serruys PW, Ormiston JA, Onuma Y, et al. A bioabsorbable everolimus-eluting coronary stent system (ABSORB): 2-year outcomes and results from multiple imaging methods. Lancet 2009; 373:897.
  24. Serruys PW, Onuma Y, Ormiston JA, et al. Evaluation of the second generation of a bioresorbable everolimus drug-eluting vascular scaffold for treatment of de novo coronary artery stenosis: six-month clinical and imaging outcomes. Circulation 2010; 122:2301.
  25. Serruys PW, Onuma Y, Dudek D, et al. Evaluation of the second generation of a bioresorbable everolimus-eluting vascular scaffold for the treatment of de novo coronary artery stenosis: 12-month clinical and imaging outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 58:1578.
  26. Serruys PW, Chevalier B, Dudek D, et al. A bioresorbable everolimus-eluting scaffold versus a metallic everolimus-eluting stent for ischaemic heart disease caused by de-novo native coronary artery lesions (ABSORB II): an interim 1-year analysis of clinical and procedural secondary outcomes from a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015; 385:43.
  27. Puricel S, Arroyo D, Corpataux N, et al. Comparison of everolimus- and biolimus-eluting coronary stents with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 65:791.
  28. Kimura T, Kozuma K, Tanabe K, et al. A randomized trial evaluating everolimus-eluting Absorb bioresorbable scaffolds vs. everolimus-eluting metallic stents in patients with coronary artery disease: ABSORB Japan. Eur Heart J 2015; 36:3332.
  29. Gao R, Yang Y, Han Y, et al. Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Versus Metallic Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: ABSORB China Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 66:2298.
  30. Sabaté M, Windecker S, Iñiguez A, et al. Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable stent vs. durable polymer everolimus-eluting metallic stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results of the randomized ABSORB ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-TROFI II trial. Eur Heart J 2016; 37:229.
  31. Wykrzykowska JJ, Kraak RP, Hofma SH, et al. Bioresorbable Scaffolds versus Metallic Stents in Routine PCI. N Engl J Med 2017.
  32. Sorrentino S, Giustino G, Mehran R, et al. Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffolds Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 69:3055.
  33. Stone GW, Gao R, Kimura T, et al. 1-year outcomes with the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold in patients with coronary artery disease: a patient-level, pooled meta-analysis. Lancet 2016; 387:1277.
  34. Zhang XL, Zhu L, Wei ZH, et al. Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stents: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2016; 164:752.
  35. Montone RA, Niccoli G, De Marco F, et al. Temporal Trends in Adverse Events After Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Versus Everolimus-Eluting Metallic Stent Implantation: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Circulation 2017; 135:2145.
  36. Ali ZA, Serruys PW, Kimura T, et al. 2-year outcomes with the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold for treatment of coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of seven randomised trials with an individual patient data substudy. Lancet 2017; 390:760.
  37. Räber L, Brugaletta S, Yamaji K, et al. Very Late Scaffold Thrombosis: Intracoronary Imaging and Histopathological and Spectroscopic Findings. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 66:1901.
  38. Haude M, Ince H, Abizaid A, et al. Safety and performance of the second-generation drug-eluting absorbable metal scaffold in patients with de-novo coronary artery lesions (BIOSOLVE-II): 6 month results of a prospective, multicentre, non-randomised, first-in-man trial. Lancet 2016; 387:31.
  39. Haude M, Erbel R, Erne P, et al. Safety and performance of the drug-eluting absorbable metal scaffold (DREAMS) in patients with de-novo coronary lesions: 12 month results of the prospective, multicentre, first-in-man BIOSOLVE-I trial. Lancet 2013; 381:836.
  40. Haude M, Ince H, Abizaid A, et al. Sustained safety and performance of the second-generation drug-eluting absorbable metal scaffold in patients with de novo coronary lesions: 12-month clinical results and angiographic findings of the BIOSOLVE-II first-in-man trial. Eur Heart J 2016; 37:2701.
  41. Kim W, Jeong MH, Kim KH, et al. The clinical results of a platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor blocker (abciximab: ReoPro)-coated stent in acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 47:933.
  42. Abizaid A, Albertal M, Costa MA, et al. First human experience with the 17-beta-estradiol-eluting stent: the Estrogen And Stents To Eliminate Restenosis (EASTER) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 43:1118.
  43. Airoldi F, Di Mario C, Ribichini F, et al. 17-beta-estradiol eluting stent versus phosphorylcholine-coated stent for the treatment of native coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 2005; 96:664.
  44. Adriaenssens T, Mehilli J, Wessely R, et al. Does addition of estradiol improve the efficacy of a rapamycin-eluting stent? Results of the ISAR-PEACE randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 49:1265.
  45. Patti G, Pasceri V, Carminati P, et al. Effect of dexamethasone-eluting stents on systemic inflammatory response in patients with unstable angina pectoris or recent myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 2005; 95:502.
  46. Haude M, Lee SW, Worthley SG, et al. The REMEDEE trial: a randomized comparison of a combination sirolimus-eluting endothelial progenitor cell capture stent with a paclitaxel-eluting stent. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2013; 6:334.