Key result
Abluminus DES+ fails to reduce OCT-derived neointimal volume versus everolimus-eluting stents in diabetic patients.
Why the study?
Diabetic patients face higher risk of recurrent adverse events after PCI, and despite new-generation drug-eluting stents, their efficacy in diabetics remains limited.
Does a biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent reduce OCT-derived neointimal volume compared to a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease undergoing PCI?
RCT (n=131)
2:1
Yes
Does a biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent reduce OCT-derived neointimal volume compared to a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease undergoing PCI?
In diabetic patients undergoing PCI, a biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent did not demonstrate superiority over a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in reducing neointimal proliferation at 9-12 months.
Does not support Abluminus DES+ superiority for neointimal reduction in diabetics; leaves open whether device-specific benefits emerge in larger clinical trials.
Background Diabetic patients are at higher risk of recurrent adverse events following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) than the nondiabetics. Despite the introduction of new generation drug‐eluting stents, their efficacy in the diabetics is still limited. Aims To evaluate the efficacy of the Abluminus DES+ biodegradable polymer sirolimus‐eluting stent in reducing neointimal hyperplasia in diabetic patients, compared to a durable polymer everolimus‐eluting stent (DP‐EES). Methods A total of 131 patients with diabetes and coronary artery disease were enrolled in six Italian centers and randomized in a 2:1 fashion to PCI with Abluminus DES+ or DP‐EES: 85 were assigned to Abluminus DES+ and 46 to DP‐EES. The primary endpoint was optimal coherence tomography (OCT)‐derived neointimal volume at 9–12 months. Secondary endpoints included OCT‐derived neointimal area, neointimal volume obstruction and adverse clinical events. Results The primary endpoint, neointimal volume, did not differ between Abluminus DES+ and DP‐EES (29.11 ± 18.90 mm3 vs. 25.48 ± 17.04 mm3, p = 0.40) at 9–12‐month follow‐up. This finding remained consistent after weighing for the sum of stents lengths (1.14 ± 0.68 mm3 vs. 0.99 ± 0.74 mm3 for Abluminus DES+ and DP‐EES, respectively, p = 0.38). Similarly, other OCT‐derived and clinical secondary endpoints did not significantly differ between the two groups. Rate of target lesion failure was high in both groups (21.2% for Abluminus DES+ and 19.6% for DP‐EES). Conclusions This preliminary study failed to demonstrate the superiority of the Abluminus DES+ over the DP‐EES in diabetic patients in terms of neointimal proliferation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maurina et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in Diabetes and coronary artery disease (n=131). Abluminus DES+ biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent vs. Durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES) was evaluated on Optimal coherence tomography (OCT)-derived neointimal volume at 9-12 months (p=0.40). The Abluminus DES+ sirolimus-eluting stent failed to demonstrate superiority over the everolimus-eluting stent for OCT-derived neointimal volume in diabetic patients (29.11 vs 25.48 mm3; P=0.40).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: