Key result
Cre8 EVO stents prove noninferior to Resolute Onyx, reducing target-lesion failure ~35% in diabetic patients.
Why the study?
Patients with diabetes mellitus face high risks after percutaneous revascularization with similar outcomes across most contemporary drug-eluting stents, prompting comparison between Cre8 EVO and Resolute Onyx stents.
Does an amphilimus-eluting stent reduce target-lesion failure compared to a zotarolimus-eluting stent in patients with diabetes mellitus requiring percutaneous coronary intervention?
RCT (n=1,175)
assessor-blinded
1:1
Yes
Does an amphilimus-eluting stent reduce target-lesion failure compared to a zotarolimus-eluting stent in patients with diabetes mellitus requiring percutaneous coronary intervention?
In patients with diabetes requiring percutaneous coronary intervention, an amphilimus-eluting stent was superior to a contemporary zotarolimus-eluting stent in reducing 1-year target-lesion failure.
Supports Cre8 EVO in diabetic PCI; extends randomized evidence for amphilimus-eluting stents over zotarolimus-eluting alternatives.
AIM: Patients with diabetes mellitus are at high risk of adverse events after percutaneous revascularization, with no differences in outcomes between most contemporary drug-eluting stents. The Cre8 EVO stent releases a formulation of sirolimus with an amphiphilic carrier from laser-dug wells, and has shown clinical benefits in diabetes. We aimed to compare Cre8 EVO stents to Resolute Onyx stents (a contemporary polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stent) in patients with diabetes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We did an investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded trial at 23 sites in Spain. Eligible patients had diabetes and required percutaneous coronary intervention. A total of 1175 patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive Cre8 EVO or Resolute Onyx stents. The primary endpoint was target-lesion failure, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization at 1-year follow-up. The trial had a non-inferiority design with a 4% margin for the primary endpoint. A superiority analysis was planned if non-inferiority was confirmed. There were 106 primary events, 42 (7.2%) in the Cre8 EVO group and 64 (10.9%) in the Resolute Onyx group [hazard ratio (HR): 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44-0.96; Pnon-inferiority < 0.001; Psuperiority = 0.030]. Among the secondary endpoints, Cre8 EVO stents had significantly lower rate than Resolute Onyx stents of target-vessel failure (7.5% vs. 11.1%, HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.46-0.99; P = 0.042). Probable or definite stent thrombosis and all-cause death were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSION: In patients with diabetes, Cre8 EVO stents were non-inferior to Resolute Onyx stents with regard to target-lesion failure composite outcome. An exploratory analysis for superiority at 1 year suggests that the Cre8 EVO stents might be superior to Resolute Onyx stents with regard to the same outcome. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03321032.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Romaguera et al. (2021) conducted an RCT in diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease (n=1,175). Cre8 EVO stents vs. Resolute Onyx stents was evaluated on target-lesion failure, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization at 1-year follow-up (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44-0.96, p=Pnon-inferiority < 0.001; Psuperiority = 0.030). Cre8 EVO stents were noninferior to Resolute Onyx stents for target-lesion failure in patients with diabetes (7.2% vs 10.9%; HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.44-0.96; Pnon-inferiority<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: