Key result
Ultimaster DES shows no significant difference in 1-year major events vs Magmaris in NSTE-ACS.
Why the study?
Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a marker of poor prognosis after PCI due to rapid atherosclerosis progression, and bioresorbable materials could potentially provide a solution.
Does the Ultimaster biodegradable polymer DES improve clinical outcomes compared to the Magmaris magnesium bioresorbable scaffold in patients with NSTE-ACS?
Observational (n=362)
Does the Ultimaster biodegradable polymer DES improve clinical outcomes compared to the Magmaris magnesium bioresorbable scaffold in patients with NSTE-ACS?
Absolute Event Rate: 2.7% vs 5.1%
Both biodegradable polymer DES and magnesium bioresorbable scaffolds show comparable safety and efficacy at 1 year in diabetic patients presenting with NSTE-ACS.
Comparable 1-year outcomes with both devices in diabetic NSTE-ACS; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation before practice change.
Background. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) with significant involvement of coronary artery disease (CAD) remains a major cause of death and disability among the diabetic population. Although percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) continues to evolve, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a well-established marker of poor clinical prognosis after PCI, which is mainly attributed to the rapid progression of atherosclerosis requiring recurrent revascularizations. Hence, the use of bioresorbable materials could provide some solution to this problem. Material and Methods. The study was divided into two arms. For the first one, we qualified 169 patients with NSTE-ACS treated with PCI who received the drug-eluting stent (DES) coated with a biodegradable polymer Ultimaster (Terumo, Tokyo, Japan). The second arm was composed of 193 patients with ACS who underwent PCI with a magnesium bioresorbable scaffold Magmaris (Biotronik, Berlin, Germany). Both arms were divided into two subsequent groups: the T2DM (59 and 72) and the non-DM (110 and 121, respectively). The primary outcomes were cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and in-stent thrombosis. The main secondary outcomes included target lesion failure (TLF) and were recorded at a 1-year-follow-up. Results. There were no significant differences between the diabetic and nondiabetic populations in the primary endpoints or main secondary endpoints (TLF, scaffold restenosis, death from any reason, and other cardiovascular events) either in the Ultimaster or Magmaris group. At a 1-year follow-up, the primary endpoint in the DM t.2 population was recorded in 2.7% Ultimaster vs. 5.1% Magmaris, respectively. Conclusion. Both, Ultimaster and Magmaris revealed relative safety and efficiency at a one-year follow-up in the diabetic population in ACS settings. The observed rates of TLF were low, which combined with a lack of in-stent thrombosis suggests that both investigated devices might be an interesting therapeutic option for diabetics with ACS. Nevertheless, further large randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm fully our results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rola et al. (2021) conducted an observational in NSTE-ACS (n=362). Ultimaster (biodegradable polymer DES) vs. Magmaris (magnesium bioresorbable scaffold) was evaluated on Composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and in-stent thrombosis. In diabetic patients with NSTE-ACS, the primary composite endpoint occurred in 2.7% of those receiving the Ultimaster stent compared to 5.1% of those receiving the Magmaris scaffold at 1 year, with no significant difference between groups.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: