Connect
MJA
MJA

Coronary stent technology: a narrative review

Daniel Chen and Nigel Jepson
Med J Aust 2016; 205 (6): . || doi: 10.5694/mja16.00444
Published online: 19 September 2016

Summary

  • Coronary angioplasty and coronary artery stents have revolutionised interventional cardiology.
  • Contemporary coronary stent technology continues to seek to improve on the outcomes of the preceding generation of devices by refining their design, structure and component materials.
  • These technologies include new generations of drug-eluting stents, non-polymeric stents, bioresorbable polymer-coated stents, and fully bioresorbable scaffolds.
  • This review discusses the evolution of coronary stent technology, the efficacy and safety of currently available devices, and the rationale for new generation platforms as efforts continue to design the ideal coronary stent technology.


  • Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW


Correspondence: Nigel.Jepson@ehc.com.au
Competing interests:

Nigel Jepson has provided consultative support for Abbott Vascular and served as a proctor for BVS implantation training programs. No grants, financial support, technical support or other assistance was received for this narrative review.

  • 1. Garg S, Serruys PW. Coronary stents: current status. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 56(10, Supplement): S1-S42.
  • 2. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Cardiovascular disease and diabetes: policies for better health and quality of care. OECD, June, 2015.
  • 3. Holmes Jr DR, Vlietstra RE, Smith HC, et al. Restenosis after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA): a report from the PTCA registry of the national heart, lung, and blood institute. Am J Cardiol 1984; 53: C77-C81.
  • 4. McBride W, Lange RA, Hillis LD. Re-stenosis after successful coronary angioplasty. N Engl J Med 1988; 318: 1734-1737.
  • 5. Sigwart U, Puel J, Mirkovitch V, et al. Intravascular stents to prevent occlusion and re-stenosis after transluminal angioplasty. N Engl J Med 1987; 316: 701-706.
  • 6. Fischman DL, Leon MB, Baim DS, et al. A randomized comparison of coronary-stent placement and balloon angioplasty in the treatment of coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 496-501.
  • 7. Serruys PW, de Jaegere P, Kiemeneij F, et al. A comparison of balloon-expandable-stent implantation with balloon angioplasty in patients with coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 489-495.
  • 8. Iqbal J, Onuma Y, Ormiston J, et al. Bioresorbable scaffolds: rationale, current status, challenges, and future. Eur Heart J 2014; 35: 765-776.
  • 9. Hoffmann R, Mintz GS, Dussaillant GR, et al. Patterns and mechanisms of in-stent restenosis: a serial intravascular ultrasound study. Circulation 1996; 94: 1247-1254.
  • 10. Sousa JE, Costa MA, Abizaid A, et al. Lack of neointimal proliferation after implantation of sirolimus-coated stents in human coronary arteries: a quantitative coronary angiography and three-dimensional intravascular ultrasound study. Circulation 2001; 103: 192-195.
  • 11. Morice M-C, Serruys PW, Sousa JE, et al. A randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent for coronary revascularization. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 1773-1780.
  • 12. Stettler C, Wandel S, Allemann S, et al. Outcomes associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: a collaborative network meta-analysis. Lancet 2007; 370: 937-948.
  • 13. Tu JV, Bowen J, Chiu M, et al. Effectiveness and safety of drug-eluting stents in Ontario. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 1393-1402.
  • 14. Yan BP, Ajani AE, Clark DJ, et al. Recent trends in Australian percutaneous coronary intervention practice: insights from the Melbourne Interventional Group registry. Med J Aust 2011; 195: 122-127.
  • 15. Hammett CJ, Stewart PJ, Atherton JJ. The fall and rise of drug-eluting stents. Med J Aust 2011; 195: 110-111.
  • 16. Ajani AE, Reid CM, Duffy SJ, et al. Outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention in contemporary Australian practice: insights from a large multicentre registry. Med J Aust 2008; 189: 423-428.
  • 17. Camenzind E, Steg PG, Wijns W. Stent thrombosis late after implantation of first-generation drug-eluting stents: a cause for concern. Circulation 2007; 115: 1440-1455; discussion 55.
  • 18. Raber L, Magro M, Stefanini GG, et al. Very late coronary stent thrombosis of a newer-generation everolimus-eluting stent compared with early-generation drug-eluting stents: a prospective cohort study. Circulation 2012; 125: 1110-1121.
  • 19. Douglas PS, Brennan JM, Anstrom KJ, et al. Clinical effectiveness of coronary stents in elderly persons: results from 262,700 Medicare patients in the American College of Cardiology–National Cardiovascular Data Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 53: 1629-1641.
  • 20. Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R, et al. Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions. Circulation 2007; 115: 2344-2351.
  • 21. Holmes Jr DR, Kereiakes DJ, Garg S, et al. Stent thrombosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 56: 1357-1365.
  • 22. Serruys PW, Daemen J. Late stent thrombosis: a nuisance in both bare metal and drug-eluting stents. Circulation 2007; 115: 1433-1439.
  • 23. 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.
  • 24. Navarese EP, Kowalewski M, Kandzari D, et al. First-generation versus second-generation drug-eluting stents in current clinical practice: updated evidence from a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials comprising 31 379 patients. Open Heart 2014; 1. doi:10.1136/openhrt-2014-000064.
  • 25. Kaul S, Diamond GA. Should everolimus-eluting stents be preferred in patients with acute and stable coronary syndromes? JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2011; 4: 1116-1118.
  • 26. Tsuburaya R, Takahashi J, Nakamura A, et al. Beneficial effects of long-acting nifedipine on coronary vasomotion abnormalities after drug-eluting stent implantation: the NOVEL study. Eur Heart J 2016; 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw256 [Epub ahead of print]
  • 27. Stefanini GG, Holmes DRJ. Drug-eluting coronary-artery stents. N Engl J Med 2013; 368: 254-265.
  • 28. Alfonso F, Fernandez C. Second-generation drug-eluting stents: moving the field forward. J Am Coll Cardio 2011; 58: 26-29.
  • 29. 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.
  • 30. 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.
  • 31. 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.
  • 32. von Birgelen C, Basalus MWZ, 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.
  • 33. Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization: the Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J 2014; 35: 2541-2619.
  • 34. 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.
  • 35. Taniwaki M, Stefanini GG, Silber S, et al. 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.
  • 36. 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.
  • 37. 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.
  • 38. 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: doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.002372.
  • 39. Pilgrim T, Heg D, Roffi M, et al. Ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent for percutaneous coronary revascularisation (BIOSCIENCE): a randomised, single-blind, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2014; 384: 2111-2122.
  • 40. Urban P, Meredith IT, Abizaid A, et al. Polymer-free drug-coated coronary stents in patients at high bleeding risk. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 2038-2047.
  • 41. Tamai H, Igaki K, Kyo E, et al. Initial and 6-month results of biodegradable poly-L-lactic acid coronary stents in humans. Circulation 2000; 102: 399-404.
  • 42. Ellis SG, Kereiakes DJ, Metzger DC, et al. Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 1905-1915.
  • 43. Robaei D, Back LM, Ooi SY, et al. Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation in real world and complex coronary disease: procedural and 30-day outcomes at two Australian centres. Heart Lung Circ 2015; 24: 854-859.
  • 44. Robaei D, Back L, Ooi SY, et al. Twelve-month outcomes with a bioresorbable everolimus-eluting scaffold: results of the ESHC-BVS registry at two Australian centers. J Invasive Cardiol 2016; 28: 316-322.
  • 45. Stone GW, Gao R, Kimura T, et al. 1-year outcomes with the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold in patients with coronary artery disease: a patient-level, pooled meta-analysis. Lancet 2016; 387: 1277-1289.
  • 46. Lipinski MJ, Escarcega RO, Baker NC, et al. Scaffold thrombosis after percutaneous coronary intervention with ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2016; 9: 12-24.
  • 47. Capodanno D, Gori T, Nef H, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in routine clinical practice: early and midterm outcomes from the European multicentre GHOST-EU registry. Eurointervention 2015; 10: 1144-1153.
  • 48. Puricel S, Cuculi F, Weissner M, et al. Bioresorbable coronary scaffold thrombosis: multicenter comprehensive analysis of clinical presentation, mechanisms, and predictors. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016; 67: 921-931.
  • 49. Otsuki S, Brugaletta S, Sabaté M, et al. Overtime evaluation of the vascular HEALing process after everolimus-eluting stent implantation by optical coherence tomography. The HEAL-EES study. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2016; 17: 241-247.

Author
remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author
Comment
Do you have any competing interests to declare? *
I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article
Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.