Second generation drug-eluting stents: a focus on safety and efficacy of current devices

References

• Nabel EG, Braunwald E. A tale of coronary artery disease and myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:54–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saez A, Moreno R. Everolimus-eluting coronary stents. Med Devices (Auckl). 2010;3:51–56.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stone GW, Ellis SG, Cox DA, et al. A polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:221–231.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moses JW, Leon MB, Popma JJ, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:1315–1323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone GW, Moses JW, Ellis SG, et al. Safety and efficacy of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:998–1008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spaulding C, Daemen J, Boersma E, et al. A pooled analysis of data comparing sirolimus-eluting stents with bare-metal stents. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:989–997.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen LO, Tilsted HH, Thayssen P, et al. Paclitaxel and sirolimus eluting stents versus bare metal stents: long-term risk of stent thrombosis and other outcomes. From the Western Denmark Heart Registry. EuroIntervention. 2010;5:898–905.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stefanini GG, Holmes JDR. Drug-eluting coronary-artery stents. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:254–265.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheiban I, Villata G, Bollati M, et al. Next generation drug eluting stents in coronary artery disease: focus on everolimus eluting stent (Xience V). Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2008;4:31–38.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Menown IB, Noad R, Garcia EJ, et al. The platinum chromium element stent platform: from alloy, to design, to clinical practice. Adv Ther. 2010;27:129–141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maeng M, Holm NR, Kaltoft A, et al. Zotarolimus-eluting versus sirolimus-eluting coronary stent implantation. Interv Cardiol. 2010;2:807–812.
   Google Scholar
• Sim DS, Jeong MH, Hong YJ, et al. Safety and efficacy of the Endeavor Resolute® Stent in patients with multivessel disease: the HEART (Honam EndeAvor ResoluTe) prospective, multicenter trial. Chonnam Med J. 2018;54:55–62.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Natsuaki M, Kozuma K, Morimoto T, et al. NEXT Investigators. Biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent: a randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:181–190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urban P, Valdés M, Menown I, et al. Outcomes following implantation of the biolimus A9-eluting BioMatrix coronary stent: primary analysis of the e-BioMatrix registry. Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent. 2015;86: 1151–1160. for the e-BioMatrix investigators.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joner M, Finn AV, Farb A, et al. Pathology of drug-eluting stents in humans: delayed healing and late thrombotic risk. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:193–202.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stefanini GG, Byrne RA, Serruys PW, et al. Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents reduce the risk of stent thrombosis at 4 years in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from the ISAR-TEST 3, ISAR-TEST 4, and LEADERS randomized trials. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:1214–1222.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bangalore S, Toklu B, Patel N, et al. Newer-generation ultrathin strut drug-eluting stents versus older second-generation thicker strut drug-eluting stents for coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2018;138:2216–2226.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kandzari DE, Mauri L, Koolen JJ, et al. BIOFLOW V Investigators. Ultrathin, bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus thin, durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation (BIOFLOW V): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2017;390:1843–1852.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaman A, de Winter RJ, Kogame N, et al. Safety and efficacy of a sirolimus-eluting coronary stent with ultra-thin strut for treatment of atherosclerotic lesions (TALENT): a prospective multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2019;393: 987–997. TALENT trial investigators.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kereiakes DJ, Meredith IT, Windecker S, et al. Efficacy and safety of a novel bioabsorbable polymer-coated, everolimus-eluting coronary stent: the EVOLVE II randomized trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:e002372.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tittelbach M, Diener T. Orsiro - the first hybrid drug-eluting stent, opening up a new class of drug-eluting stents for superior patient outcomes. Interv Cardiol. 2011;6:142–144.
   Google Scholar
• Costa RA, Abizaid A, Mehran R, et al. Polymer-free biolimus A9-coated stents in the treatment of de novo coronary lesions: 4- and 12-month angiographic follow-up and final 5-year clinical outcomes of the prospective, multicenter biofreedom FIM clinical trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:: 51–64. BioFreedom FIM Clinical Trial Investigators.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moretti C, Lolli V, Perona G, et al. Cre8™ coronary stent: preclinical in vivo assessment of a new generation polymer-free DES with Amphilimus™ formulation. EuroIntervention. 2012;7:1087–1094.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Takahashi K, Serruys PW, Kogame N, et al. Final 3-year outcomes of mistent biodegradable polymer crystalline sirolimus-eluting stent versus xience permanent polymer everolimus-eluting stent: insights from the DESSOLVE III all-comers randomized trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13:e008737.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saito Y, Grubman D, Cristea E, et al. The firehawk stent: a review of a novel abluminal groove-filled biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent. Cardiol Rev. 2020;28:208–212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2018;00: 1–96.
   Google Scholar
• Costa RA, Lansky AJ, Mintz GS, et al. Angiographic results of the first human experience with everolimus-eluting stents for the treatment of coronary lesions (the FUTURE I trial). Am J Cardiol. 2005;95:113–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsuchiya Y, Lansky AJ, Costa RA, et al. Effect of everolimus-eluting stents in different vessel sizes (from the pooled FUTURE I and II trials). Am J Cardiol. 2006;98:464–469.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiemer M, Serruys PW, Miquel-Hebert K, et al. Five-year long-term clinical follow-up of the XIENCE V everolimus-eluting coronary stent system in the treatment of patients with de novo coronary artery lesions: the SPIRIT FIRST trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;75:997–1003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fajadet J, Wijns W, Laarman GJ, et al. Randomized, double-blind, multicenter study of the Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting phosphorylcholine-encapsulated stent for treatment of native coronary artery lesions: clinical and angiographic results of the ENDEAVOR II trial. Circulation. 2006;114:798–806.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fajadet J, Wijns W, Laarman GJ, et al. Long-term follow-up of the randomised controlled trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the zotarolimus-eluting driver coronary stent in de novo native coronary artery lesions: five year outcomes in the ENDEAVOR II study. EuroIntervention. 2010;6:562–567.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonaa KH, Mannsverk J, Wiseth R, et al. Drug-eluting or bare-metal stents for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1242–1252. NORSTENT Investigators.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nebeker JR, Virmani R, Bennett CL, et al. Hypersensitivity cases associated with drug-eluting coronary stents: a review of available cases from the research on adverse drug events and reports (RADAR) project. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:175–181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofma SH, van der Giessen WJ, van Dalen BM, et al. Indication of long-term endothelial dysfunction after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation. Eur Heart J. 2006;27:166–170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffmann R, Morice MC, Moses JW, et al. Impact of late incomplete stent apposition after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation on 4-year clinical events: intravascular ultrasound analysis from the multicentre, randomised, RAVEL, E-SIRIUS and SIRIUS trials. Heart. 2008;94:322–328.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serruys PW, Ruygrok P, Neuzner J, et al. A randomised comparison of an everolimus-eluting coronary stent with a paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent: the SPIRIT II trial. EuroIntervention. 2006;2:286–294.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ruygrok PN, Desaga M, Van Den Branden F, et al. One year clinical follow-up of the XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stent system in the treatment of patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions:the SPIRIT II study. EuroIntervention. 2007;3:315–320.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Claessen BE, Beijk MA, Legrand V, et al. Two-year clinical, angiographic, and intravascular ultrasound follow-up of the XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions: the SPIRIT II trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:339–347.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garg S, Serruys P, Onuma Y, et al. 3-year clinical follow-up of the XIENCE V everolimus-eluting coronary stent system in the treatment of patients with de novo coronary artery lesions: the SPIRIT II trial (clinical evaluation of the xience V everolimus eluting coronary stent system in the treatment of patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:1190–1198.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garg S, Serruys PW, Miquel-Hébert K. on behalf of the SPIRIT II Investigators. Four-year clinical follow-up of the XIENCE V everolimus-eluting coronary stent system in the treatment of patients with de novo coronary artery lesions: the SPIRIT II trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;77:1012–1017.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Onuma Y, Miquel-Hebért K, Serruys PW. Five-year long-term clinical follow-up of the XIENCE V everolimus-eluting coronary stent system in the treatment of patients with de novo coronary artery disease: the SPIRIT II trial. EuroIntervention. 2013;8:1047–1051. on behalf of the SPIRIT II Investigators.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone GW, Midei M, Newman W, et al. Comparison of an everolimus-eluting stent and a paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2008;299:1903–1913.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone GW, Midei M, Newman W, et al. Randomized comparison of everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents: two-year clinical follow-up from the clinical evaluation of the Xience V everolimus eluting coronary stent system in the treatment of patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions (SPIRIT) III trial. Circulation. 2009;119: 680–686. for the SPIRIT III Investigators.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Applegate RJ, Yaqub M, Hermiller JB, et al. Long-term (three-year) safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents (from the SPIRIT III Trial). Am J Cardiol. 2011;107:833–840.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gada H, Kirtane AJ, Newman W, et al. 5-year results of a randomized comparison of Xience V everolimus-eluting and Taxus paclitaxel-eluting stents: final results from the SPIRIT III Trial (Clinical evaluation of the Xience V everolimus eluting coronary stent system in the treatment of patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:1263–1266.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Onuma Y, Serruys PW, Kukreja N, et al. Randomized comparison of everolimus and paclitaxel-eluting stents: pooled analysis of the 2-year clinical follow-up from the SPIRIT II and III trials. Eur Heart J. 2010;31:1071–1078.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caixeta A, Lansky AJ, Serruys PW, et al. Clinical follow-up 3 years after everolimus-and paclitaxel-eluting stents: a pooled analysis from the SPIRIT II (A clinical evaluation of the XIENCE V everolimus eluting coronary stent system in the treatment of patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions) and SPIRIT III (A clinical evaluation of the investigational device XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [EECSS] in the treatment of subjects with de novo native coronary artery lesions) randomized trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3:1220–1228. SPIRIT II and III Investigators.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nikolsky E, Lansky AJ, Sudhir K, et al. SPIRIT IV trial design: a large-scale randomized comparison of everolimus-eluting stents and paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease. Am Heart J. 2009;158:520–526.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone GW, Rizvi A, Newman W, et al. Everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1663–1674.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone GW, Rizvi A, Sudhir K, et al. Randomized comparison of everolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents: 2-year follow-up from the SPIRIT (clinical evalution of the XIENCE V everolimus eluting coronary stent system) IV trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58: 19–25. for the SPIRIT Investigators.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kedhi E, Joesoef KS, McFadden E, et al. Second-generation everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-life practice (COMPARE): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2010;375:201–209.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smits PC, Kedhi E, Royaards KJ, et al. 2-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of everolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents for coronary revascularization in daily practice. COMPARE (Comparison of the everolimus eluting XIENCE-V stent with the paclitaxel eluting TAXUS LIBERTE stent in all-comers: a randomized open label trial). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:11–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smits PC, Vlachojannis GJ, McFadden EP, et al. Final 5-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial of everolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents for coronary revascularization in daily practice: the COMPARE trial (A trial of everolimus-eluting stents and paclitaxel stents for coronary revascularization in daily practice). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:1157–1165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leon MB, Mauri L, Popma JJ, et al. A randomized comparison of the Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent versus the TAXUS paclitaxel-eluting stent in de novo native coronary lesions 12-month outcomes from the ENDEAVOR IV trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55: 543–554. ENDEAVOR IV Investigators.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leon MB, Kandzari DE, Eisenstein EL, et al. Late safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of a zotarolimus-eluting stent compared with a paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with de novo coronary lesions: 2-year follow-up from the ENDEAVOR IV trial (randomized, controlled trial of the medtronic endeavor drug [ABT-578] eluting coronary stent system versus the taxus paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent system in de novo native coronary artery lesions). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2: 1208–1218. ENDEAVOR IV Investigators.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leon MB, Nikolsky E, Cutlip DE, et al. Improved late clinical safety with zotarolimus-eluting stents compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with de novo coronary lesions: 3-year follow-up from the ENDEAVOR IV (randomized comparison of zotarolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease) trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3:1043–1050. ENDEAVOR IV Investigators.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirtane AJ, Leon MB, Ball MW, et al. The “final” 5-year follow-up from the ENDEAVOR IV trial comparing a zotarolimus-eluting stent with a paclitaxel-eluting stent. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6: 325–333. ENDEAVOR IV Investigators.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen LO, Thayssen P, Tilsted HH, et al. Rationale and design of a randomized clinical comparison of everolimus-Eluting (Xience V/Promus) and sirolimus-Eluting (cypher select+) coronary stents in unselected patients with coronary heart disease. Cardiology. 2010;116:73–78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen LO, Thayssen P, Hansen HS, et al. Randomized comparison of everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention: the scandinavian organization for randomized trials with clinical outcomes IV (SORT OUT IV). Circulation. 2012;125:1246–1255.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen LO, Thayssen P, Maeng M, et al. Three-year outcomes after revascularization with everolimus- and sirolimus-eluting stents from the SORT OUT IV trial. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2014;7:840–848.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen LO, Thayssen P, Christiansen EH, et al. Safety and efficacy of everolimus- versus sirolimus-eluting stents: 5-year results from SORT OUT IV. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67:751–762.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kimura T, Morimoto T, Natsuaki M, et al. Comparison of everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents: 1-year outcomes from the randomized evaluation of sirolimus-eluting versus everolimus-eluting stent trial (RESET). Circulation. 2012;126:1225–1236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kozuma K, Kimura T, Kadota K, et al. Angiographic findings of everolimus-eluting as compared to sirolimus-eluting stents: angiographic sub-study from the Randomized Evaluation of Sirolimus-eluting versus Everolimus-eluting stent Trial (RESET). Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2013;28:344–351.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shiomi H, Kozuma K, Morimoto T, et al. Longterm clinical outcomes after everolimus- and sirolimus-eluting coronary stent implantation: final 3-year follow-up of the randomized evaluation of sirolimus-eluting versus everolimus-eluting stent trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:343–354.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shiomi H, Kozuma K, Morimoto T, et al. 7-year outcomes of a randomized trial comparing the first-generation sirolimus-eluting stent versus the new-generation everolimus-eluting stent: the RESET trial. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2019;12:637–647.
   Google Scholar
• Kandzari DE, Leon MB, Popma JJ, et al. Comparison of zotarolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with native coronary artery disease: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:2440–2447. for the ENDEAVOR III Investigators.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenstein EL, Leon MB, Kandzari DE, et al. Long-term clinical and economic analysis of the Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent versus the Cypher sirolimus-eluting stent: 3-year results from the ENDEAVOR III trial (randomized controlled trial of the medtronic endeavor drug [ABT-578] eluting coronary stent system versus the cypher sirolimus-eluting coronary stent system in de novo native coronary artery lesions). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2: 1199–1207. ENDEAVOR III Investigators.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kandzari DE, Mauri L, Popma JJ, et al. Late-term clinical outcomes with zotarolimus- and sirolimus-eluting stents. 5-year follow-up of the ENDEAVOR III (a randomized controlled trial of the medtronic endeavor drug [ABT-578] eluting coronary stent system versus the cypher sirolimus-eluting coronary stent system in de novo native coronary artery lesions). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4:543–550.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasmussen K, Maeng M, Kaltoft A, et al. SORT OUT III study group. Efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents in routine clinical care (SORT OUT III): a randomised controlled superiority trial. Lancet. 2010;375:1090–1099.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maeng M, Tilsted HH, Jensen LO, et al. 3-Year clinical outcomes in the randomized SORT OUT III superiority trial comparing zotarolimus- and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5:812–818.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maeng M, Tilsted HH, Jensen LO, et al. Differential clinical outcomes after 1 year versus 5 years in a randomised comparison of zotarolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents (the SORT OUT III study): a multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial. Lancet. 2014;383:2047–2056.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serruys PW, Silber S, Garg S, et al. Comparison of zotarolimus-eluting and everolimus-eluting coronary stents. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:136–146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silber S, Windecker S, Vranckx P, et al. RESOLUTE all comers investigators. Unrestricted randomised use of two new generation drug-eluting coronary stents: 2-year patient-related versus stent-related outcomes from the RESOLUTE All Comers trial. Lancet. 2011;377:1241–1247.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taniwaki M, Stefanini GG, Silber S, et al. RESOLUTE All-Comers Investigators. 4-year clinical outcomes and predictors of repeat revascularization in patients treated with new-generation drug-eluting stents: a report from the RESOLUTE All-Comers trial (a randomized comparison of a zotarolimus-eluting stent with an everolimus-eluting stent for percutaneous coronary intervention). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:1617–1625.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iqbal J, Serruys PW, Silber S, et al. Comparison of zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting coronary stents: final 5-year report of the RESOLUTE all-comers trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:e002230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Birgelen C, Basalus MW, Tandjung K, et al. A randomized controlled trial in second-generation zotarolimus-eluting Resolute stents versus everolimus-eluting Xience V stents in real-world patients: the TWENTE trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:1350–1361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tandjung K, Sen H, Lam MK, et al. Clinical outcome following stringent discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy after 12 months in real-world patients treated with second-generation zotarolimus-eluting resolute and everolimus-eluting Xience V stents: 2-year follow-up of the randomized TWENTE trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:2406–2416.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Löwik MM, Lam MK, Sen H, et al. Safety of second-generation drug-eluting stents three years after randomised use in the TWENTE trial. EuroIntervention. 2015;10:1276–1279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Birgelen C, van der Heijden LC, Basalus MW, et al. Five-year outcome after implantation of zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting stents in randomized trial participants and nonenrolled eligible patients: a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2017;2:268–276.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Birgelen C, Sen H, Lam MK, et al. Third-generation zotarolimus-eluting and everolimus-eluting stents in all-comer patients requiring a percutaneous coronary intervention (DUTCH PEERS): a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2014;383:413–423.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sen H, Lam MK, Löwik MM, et al. Clinical events and patient-reported chest pain in all-comers treated with resolute integrity and promus element stents: 2-year follow-up of the DUTCH PEERS (DUrable polymer-based stent challenge of promus element versus resolute integrity) randomized trial (TWENTE II). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:889–899.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Heijden LC, Kok MM, Löwik MM, et al. Three-year safety and efficacy of treating all-comers with newer-generation Resolute Integrity or PROMUS Element stents in the randomised DUTCH PEERS (TWENTE II) trial. EuroIntervention. 2017;12:2128–2131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zocca P, Kok MM, Tandjung K, et al. 5-year outcome following randomized treatment of all-comers with zotarolimus-eluting resolute integrity and everolimus-eluting PROMUS element coronary stents: final report of the DUTCH PEERS (TWENTE II) trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:462–469.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Windecker S, Serruys PW, Wandel S, et al. Biolimus-eluting stent with biodegradable polymer versus sirolimus-eluting stent with durable polymer for coronary revascularisation (LEADERS): a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2008;372:1163–1173.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wykrzykowska J, Serruys P, Buszman P, et al. The three year follow-up of the randomised “all-comers” trial of a biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent versus permanent polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (LEADERS). EuroIntervention. 2011;7:789–795.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serruys PW, Farooq V, Kalesan B, et al. Improved safety and reduction in stent thrombosis associated with biodegradable polymer-based biolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: final 5-year report of the LEADERS (limus eluted from a durable versus erodable stent coating) randomized, noninferiority trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:777–789.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christiansen EH, Jensen LO, Thayssen P, et al. Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials with Clinical Outcome (SORT OUT) V investigators. Biolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer-coated stent versus durable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent in unselected patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (SORT OUT V): a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2013 381:661–669.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kaiser C, Galatius S, Jeger R, et al. BASKET-PROVE II study group. Long-term efficacy and safety of biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stents: main results of the basel stent kosten-effektivitäts trial-prospective validation examination II (BASKET-PROVE II), a randomized, controlled noninferiority 2-year outcome trial. Circulation. 2015;131:74–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smits PC, Hofma S, Togni M, et al. Abluminal biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (COMPARE II): a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2013;381:651–660.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vlachojannis GJ, Smits PC, Hofma SH, et al. Long-term clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: three-year follow-up of the COMPARE II (Abluminal biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent) trial. EuroIntervention. 2015;11:272–279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vlachojannis GJ, Smits PC, Hofma SH, et al. Biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: final 5-year report from the COMPARE II trial (abluminal biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:1215–1221.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Natsuaki M, Kozuma K, Morimoto T, et al. Final 3-year outcome of a randomized trial comparing second-generation drug-eluting stents using either biodegradable polymer or durable polymer: NOBORI biolimus-eluting versus XIENCE/PROMUS everolimus-eluting stent trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:e002817.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Natsuaki M, Kozuma K, Morimoto T, et al. Five-year outcome of a randomised trial comparing second-generation drug-eluting stents using either biodegradable polymer or durable polymer: the NOBORI biolimus-eluting versus XIENCE/PROMUS everolimus-eluting stent trial (NEXT). EuroIntervention. 2018;14:815–818.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raungaard B, Jensen LO, Tilsted HH, et al. Scandinavian organization for randomized trials with clinical outcome (SORT OUT). Zotarolimus-eluting durable-polymer-coated stent versus a biolimus-eluting biodegradable-polymer-coated stent in unselected patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (SORT OUT VI): a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2015;385:1527–1535.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raungaard B, Christiansen EH, Bøtker HE, et al. SORT OUT VI investigators. Comparison of durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting and biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting coronary stents in patients with coronary artery disease: 3-year clinical outcomes in the randomized SORT OUT VI trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:255–264.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmerini T, Biondi-Zoccai G, Della Riva D, et al. Clinical outcomes with bioabsorbable polymer- versus durable polymer-based drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:299–307.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• El-Hayek G, Bangalore S, Casso Dominguez A, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stent to second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:462–473.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kereiakes DJ, Windecker S, Jobe RL, et al. Clinical outcomes following implantation of thin-strut, bioabsorbable polymer-coated, everolimus-eluting SYNERGY stents. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:e008152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Birgelen C, Kok MM, van der Heijden LC, et al. Very thin strut biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents in allcomers with coronary artery disease (BIO-RESORT): a three-arm, randomised, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2016;388:2607–2617.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iannaccone M, Gatti P, Barbero U, et al. Impact of strut thickness and number of crown and connectors on clinical outcomes on patients treated with second-generation drug eluting stent. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;96:1417–1422.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iannaccone M, D’Ascenzo F, Gallone G, et al. Impact of structural features of very thin stents implanted in unprotected left main or coronary bifurcations on clinical outcomes. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;96:1–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monjur MR, Said CF, Bamford P, et al. Ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents: a meta-analysis. Open Heart. 2020;7:e001394.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Winter RJ, Katagiri Y, Asano T, et al. A sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer-coated stent (MiStent) versus an everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent (Xience) after percutaneous coronary intervention (DESSOLVE III): a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2018;391:431–440.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katagiri Y, Onuma Y, Lurz P, et al. Clinical outcomes of bioabsorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents: two-year follow-up of the DESSOLVE III trial. EuroIntervention. 2020;15:e1366–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrié D, Berland J, Verheye S, et al. A multicenter randomized trial comparing amphilimus- with paclitaxel-eluting stents in de novo native coronary artery lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:1371–1376.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrié D, Berland J, Verheye S, et al. Five-year clinical outcome of multicenter randomized trial comparing amphilimus - with paclitaxel-eluting stents in de novo native coronary artery lesions. Int J Cardiol. 2020;301:50–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rozemeijer R, Stein M, Voskuil M, et al. ReCre8 study investigators. randomized all-comers evaluation of a permanent polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent versus a polymer-free amphilimus-eluting stent. Circulation. 2019;139:67–77.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lansky A, Wijns W, Xu B, et al. TARGET all comers investigators. Targeted therapy with a localised abluminal groove, low-dose sirolimus-eluting, biodegradable polymer coronary stent (TARGET all comers): a multicentre, open-label, randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2018;392:1117–1126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu B, Saito Y, Baumbach A, et al. TARGET AC investigators. 2-year clinical outcomes of an abluminal groove-filled biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:1679–1687.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalesan B, Pilgrim T, Heinimann K, et al. Comparison of drug-eluting stents with bare metal stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:977–987.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sabate M, Cequier A, Iñiguez A, et al. Rationale and design of the EXAMINATION trial: a randomised comparison between everolimus-eluting stents and cobalt-chromium bare-metal stents in ST-elevation myocardial infarction. EuroIntervention. 2011;7:977–984.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabaté M, Cequier A, Iñiguez A, et al. Everolimus-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (EXAMINATION): 1 year results of a randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2012;380:1482–1490.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabaté M, Brugaletta S, Cequier A, et al. The EXAMINATION trial (everolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction): 2-year results from a multicenter randomised controlled trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:64–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabaté M, Brugaletta S, Cequier A, et al. Clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with everolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents (EXAMINATION): 5-year results of a randomised trial. Lancet. 2016;387:357–366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brugaletta S, Gomez-Lara J, Ortega-Paz L, et al. TCT CONNECT-7 everolimus-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 10-year follow-up of the multicenter randomized controlled examination trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76(17):B4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia-Garcia HM, McFadden EP, Farb A, et al. Standardized end point definitions for coronary intervention trials: the academic research consortium-2 consensus document. Circulation. 2018;137:2635–2650.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Philip F, Agarwal S, Bunte MC, et al. Stent thrombosis with second-generation drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents: network meta-analysis of primary percutaneous coronary intervention trials in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2014;7:49–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Philip F, Stewart S, Southard JA. Very late stent thrombosis with second generation drug eluting stents compared to bare metal stents: network meta-analysis of randomized primary percutaneous coronary intervention trials. Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent. 2016;88:38–48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofma SH, Brouwer J, Velders MA, et al. Second-generation everolimus-eluting stents versus first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents in acute myocardial infarction. 1-year results of the randomized XAMI (Xience V Stent vs. Cypher Stent in Primary PCI for Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:381–387.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofma SH, Smits PC, Brouwer J, et al. Long-term follow-up of second-generation everolimus-eluting stents versus first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents in acute myocardial infarction: three-year results of the XAMI trial. EuroIntervention. 2015;10:1280–1283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Houwelingen KG, Lam MK, Löwik MM, et al. Outcome after myocardial infarction treated with resolute integrity and promus element stents: insights from the DUTCH PEERS (TWENTE II) randomized trial. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2016;69:1152–1159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koskinas KC, Siontis GC, Piccolo R, et al. Impact of diabetic status on outcomes after revascularization with drug-eluting stents in relation to coronary artery disease complexity: patient-level pooled analysis of 6081 patients. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:e003255.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bangalore S, Kumar S, Fusaro M, et al. Outcomes with various drug eluting or bare metal stents in patients with diabetes mellitus: mixed treatment comparison analysis of 22,844 patient years of follow-up from randomised trials. BMJ. 2012;345:e5170.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bangalore S, Toklu B, Feit F. Outcomes with coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with diabetes mellitus: can newer generation drug-eluting stents bridge the gap? Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:518–525.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bavishi C, Baber U, Panwar S, et al. Efficacy and safety of everolimus and zotarolimus-eluting stents versus first-generation drug-eluting stents in patients with diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Int J Cardiol. 2017;230:310–318.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romaguera R, Gómez-Hospital JA, Gomez-Lara J, et al. A randomized comparison of reservoir-based polymer-free amphilimus-eluting stents versus everolimus-eluting stents with durable polymer in patients with diabetes mellitus: the RESERVOIR clinical trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:42–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godino C, Pivato CA, Chiarito M, et al. Italian nobori stent prospective registry-1 (INSPIRE-1) and amphilimus italian multicentre registry (ASTUTE) investigators. Polymer-free amphilimus-eluting stent versus biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Int J Cardiol. 2017;245:69–76.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Valgimigli M, Bueno H, Byrne RA, et al. ESC scientific document group; ESC committee for practice guidelines (CPG); ESC national cardiac societies. 2017 ESC focused update on dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease developed in collaboration with EACTS: the Task Force for dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease of the European society of cardiology (ESC) and of the European association for cardio-thoracic surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J. 2018;39:213–260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giustino G, Baber U, Sartori S, et al. Duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:1298–1310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valgimigli M, Patialiakas A, Thury A, et al. ZEUS investigators. Zotarolimus-eluting versus bare-metal stents in uncertain drug-eluting stent candidates. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:805–815.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urban P, Meredith IT, Abizaid A, et al. LEADERS FREE investigators. Polymer-free drug-coated coronary stents in patients at high bleeding risk. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2038–2047.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garot P, Morice MC, Tresukosol D, et al. LEADERS FREE investigators. 2-year outcomes of high bleeding risk patients after polymer-free drug-coated stents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:162–171.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varenne O, Cook S, Sideris G, et al. SENIOR investigators. Drug-eluting stents in elderly patients with coronary artery disease (SENIOR): a randomised single-blind trial. Lancet. 2018;391:41–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li H, Guo W, Dai W, et al. Short-versus long-term dual antiplatelet therapy after second-generation drug-eluting stent implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2018;12:1815–1825.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Ascenzo F, Iannaccone M, Saint-Hilary G, et al. Impact of design of coronary stents and length of dual antiplatelet therapies on ischaemic and bleeding events: a network meta-analysis of 64 randomized controlled trials and 102 735 patients. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:3160–3172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Ascenzo F, Barbero U, Abdirashid M, et al. Incidence of adverse events at 3 months versus at 12 months after dual antiplatelet therapy cessation in patients treated with thin stents with unprotected left main or coronary bifurcations. Am J Cardiol. 2020;125:491–499.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Windecker S, Latib A, Kedhi E, et al. ONYX ONE investigators. Polymer-based or polymer-free stents in patients at high bleeding risk. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1208–1218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valgimigli M, Cao D, Makkar RR, et al. Design and rationale of the XIENCE short DAPT clinical program: an assessment of the safety of 3-month and 1-month DAPT in patients at high bleeding risk undergoing PCI with an everolimus-eluting stent. Am Heart J. 2021;231:147-156
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehran R, Valgimigli M . The XIENCE short DAPT program: XIENCE 90/28. Evaluating the safety of 3-month and 1-month DAPT in HBR patients [oral presentation]. TCT Connect; 2020 Oct 14–18. on behalf of the XIENCE 90/28 Investigators.
   Google Scholar
• Stone GW, Sabik JF, Serruys PW, et al. EXCEL trial investigators. everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:2223–2235.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shlofmitz E, Généreux P, Chen S, et al. Left main coronary artery disease revascularization according to the SYNTAX score. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:e008007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone GW, Kappetein AP, Sabik JF, et al. EXCEL trial investigators. Five-year outcomes after PCI or CABG for left main coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1820–1830.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nerlekar N, Ha FJ, Verma KP, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention using drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:e004729.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee PH, Kwon O, Ahn JM, et al. Safety and effectiveness of second-generation drug-eluting stents in patients with left main coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71:832–841.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bangalore S, Guo Y, Samadashvili Z, et al. Everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for multivessel coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1213–1222.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park SJ, Ahn JM, Kim YH, et al. BEST trial investigators. Trial of everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1204–1212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Head SJ, Milojevic M, Daemen J, et al. Mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting for coronary artery disease: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet. 2018;391:939–948.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Généreux P, Kumsars I, Lesiak M, et al. A randomized trial of a dedicated bifurcation stent versus provisional stenting in the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:533–543.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar