EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2019
First-in-man randomised comparison of the Angiolite durable fluoroacrylate polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stent versus a durable fluoropolymer-based everolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease: the ANGIOLITE trial.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Moreu José, Moreno-Gómez Raúl, Pérez de Prado Armando, García Del Blanco Bruno, Trillo Ramiro, Pinar Eduardo, Molina Eduardo, Zueco Javier, Merchán Antonio, Díaz-Fernández José Francisco, Amat Ignacio
Аннотация
AIMS: The durable fluoroacrylate polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stent (Angiolite SES) has shown promising preclinical and clinical results regarding inflammatory vascular reaction and neointimal healing. We aimed to compare performance between the Angiolite SES and an everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in patients with coronary artery disease.
METHODS AND RESULTS: The ANGIOLITE trial, a prospective, randomised, multicentre trial, compared the restenosis parameters of both stents in de novo coronary lesions. The primary endpoint was late lumen loss at six-month angiographic follow-up. In-stent healing was assessed by optical coherence tomography (OCT). The main clinical endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF) evaluated up to 24 months. A total of 223 patients were randomised 1:1 to EES or SES. At six months, in-stent late lumen loss was 0.08 mm (±0.38) for EES vs 0.04 mm (±0.39) for SES (difference=-0.04 mm, 95% CI: -0.15, 0.07, p for non-inferiority=0.002). By OCT, the rate of uncovered to total number of struts score >30% was comparable between the groups whereas neointimal thickness was reduced in the SES arm (9.0% [7.6, 10.6] vs 9.9% [8.5, 11.3], p=0.41; and 86.4 [81.6, 91.2] µm vs 72.1 [68.2, 76.0] µm, p<0.01, respectively). At 24 months, TLF occurred in eight patients (7.6% [3.3, 14.5]) in the EES arm and in seven patients (7.1% [2.9, 14.0]) in the SES arm (p=0.88). The definite/probable stent thrombosis rate was comparable between the groups (1.9% [0.2, 6.7] vs 1.0% [0.0, 5.5] EES vs SES, respectively; p=0.59).
CONCLUSIONS: This trial demonstrates similar antirestenotic efficacy at midterm follow-up of the Angiolite SES vs an EES. Clinical endpoints were comparable between the groups at two-year follow-up. Visual summary. Main results of the ANGIOLITE trial.
METHODS AND RESULTS: The ANGIOLITE trial, a prospective, randomised, multicentre trial, compared the restenosis parameters of both stents in de novo coronary lesions. The primary endpoint was late lumen loss at six-month angiographic follow-up. In-stent healing was assessed by optical coherence tomography (OCT). The main clinical endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF) evaluated up to 24 months. A total of 223 patients were randomised 1:1 to EES or SES. At six months, in-stent late lumen loss was 0.08 mm (±0.38) for EES vs 0.04 mm (±0.39) for SES (difference=-0.04 mm, 95% CI: -0.15, 0.07, p for non-inferiority=0.002). By OCT, the rate of uncovered to total number of struts score >30% was comparable between the groups whereas neointimal thickness was reduced in the SES arm (9.0% [7.6, 10.6] vs 9.9% [8.5, 11.3], p=0.41; and 86.4 [81.6, 91.2] µm vs 72.1 [68.2, 76.0] µm, p<0.01, respectively). At 24 months, TLF occurred in eight patients (7.6% [3.3, 14.5]) in the EES arm and in seven patients (7.1% [2.9, 14.0]) in the SES arm (p=0.88). The definite/probable stent thrombosis rate was comparable between the groups (1.9% [0.2, 6.7] vs 1.0% [0.0, 5.5] EES vs SES, respectively; p=0.59).
CONCLUSIONS: This trial demonstrates similar antirestenotic efficacy at midterm follow-up of the Angiolite SES vs an EES. Clinical endpoints were comparable between the groups at two-year follow-up. Visual summary. Main results of the ANGIOLITE trial.