Why the study?
Is the Rapstrom biodegradable polymer rapamycin-eluting stent safe and efficacious in patients with single de novo native coronary stenosis?
Is the Rapstrom biodegradable polymer rapamycin-eluting stent safe and efficacious in patients with single de novo native coronary stenosis?
The Rapstrom biodegradable polymer rapamycin-eluting stent demonstrated safety and efficacy with low late lumen loss in a first-in-man study.
Supports early safety signals for Rapstrom stent; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized trials before practice change.
BACKGROUND: Durable polymers used for first-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) potentially contribute to persistent inflammation and late DES thrombosis. We report the first real-life human experience with the rapamycin-eluting biodegradable polymer-coated Rapstrom stent. METHODS: All consecutive patients with single de novo native coronary stenosis (<30 mm and between 2.5 and 4.0 mm) were enrolled. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year (cardiac death, myocardial infarction [Q and non-Q], or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) were the primary end-point. RESULTS: A total of 123 patients were enrolled. The stent was implanted without complications in all patients, and no MACE were recorded at 30 days. At 12-month follow-up 9 patients (7.3%) experienced a MACE and 4 (3.2%) required a target lesion revascularization, while 1 (1%) stent thrombosis was recorded. A planned angiographic follow-up (FU) was performed in 73 patients (59%) at 9.4 ± 2.6 months following the index procedure. In-stent late loss was 0.16 ± 0.09 mm, and in-segment late loss was 0.18 ± 0.8 mm. CONCLUSION: The Rapstrom biodegradable polymer rapamycin-eluting stent appeared safe and efficacious in this first real-life human experience, due to a low late lumen loss. Larger randomized studies are required to confirm these preliminary results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kumar et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: