Why the study?
Recent DES iterations have led to ultrathin strut platforms thinner than 70 µm, prompting a review of device characteristics and clinical data across various settings.
Do ultrathin struts drug-eluting stents reduce target-lesion and target-vessel failures compared to conventional new-generation drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing PCI?
Do ultrathin struts drug-eluting stents reduce target-lesion and target-vessel failures compared to conventional new-generation drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing PCI?
This review highlights that ultrathin strut DESs (<70 µm) may improve PCI outcomes by reducing target-lesion and target-vessel failures compared to conventional new-generation DESs.
Cautious adoption possible in select PCI cases; leaves open confirmation via dedicated randomized trials.
New-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) represent the standard of care for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent iterations in DES technology have led to the development of newer stent platforms with a further reduction in strut thickness. This new DES class, known as ultrathin struts DESs, has struts thinner than 70 µm. The evidence base for these devices consists of observational data, large-scale meta-analyses, and randomized trials with long-term follow-up, which have been conducted to investigate the difference between ultrathin struts DESs and conventional new-generation DESs in a variety of clinical settings and lesion subsets. Ultrathin struts DESs may further improve the efficacy and safety profile of PCI by reducing the risk of target-lesion and target-vessel failures in comparison to new-generation DESs. In this article, we reviewed device characteristics and clinical data of the Orsiro (Biotronik, Bülach, Switzerland), Coroflex ISAR (B. Braun Melsungen, Germany), BioMime (Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Gujarat, India), MiStent (MiCell Technologies, USA), and Supraflex (Sahajanand Medical Technologies, Surat, India) sirolimus-eluting stents.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Leone et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: