EClinicalMedicine (Nov 2023)

First randomised controlled trial comparing the sirolimus-eluting bioadaptor with the zotarolimus-eluting drug-eluting stent in patients with de novo coronary artery lesions: 12-month clinical and imaging data from the multi-centre, international, BIODAPTOR-RCTResearch in Context

  • Shigeru Saito,
  • Johan Bennett,
  • Holger M. Nef,
  • Mark Webster,
  • Atsuo Namiki,
  • Akihiko Takahashi,
  • Tsunekazu Kakuta,
  • Seiji Yamazaki,
  • Yoshisato Shibata,
  • Douglas Scott,
  • Mathias Vrolix,
  • Madhav Menon,
  • Helge Möllmann,
  • Nikos Werner,
  • Antoinette Neylon,
  • Zlatko Mehmedbegovic,
  • Pieter C. Smits,
  • Marie-Claude Morice,
  • Stefan Verheye

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 65
p. 102304

Abstract

Read online

Summary: Background: The DynamX™ bioadaptor is the first coronary implant technology with a unique mechanism of unlocking the bioadaptor frame after polymer resorption over 6 months, uncaging the vessel while maintaining a dynamic support to the vessel. It aims to achieve the acute performance of drug-eluting stents (DES) with the advantages of restoration of vessel function. Methods: This international, single blinded, randomised controlled (1:1) trial compared a sirolimus-eluting bioadaptor with a contemporary zotarolimus-eluting stent (DES) in 34 hospitals in Europe, Japan and New Zealand. Patients with de novo coronary lesions and absence of acute myocardial infarction were enrolled from January 2021 to Feburary 2022. The implantation of the bioadaptor followed the standards of DES. An imaging subset of 100 patients had angiographic and intravascular ultrasound assessments, and 20 patients additionally optical coherence tomography. Data collection will continue through 5 years, we herein report 12-month data based on an intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04192747). Findings: 445 patients were randomised between January 2021 and February 2022. Device, lesion and procedural success rates, and acute gain were similar amongst the groups. The primary endpoint, 12-month target lesion failure, was 1.8% [95% CI: 0.5; 4.6] (n = 4) versus 2.8% [95% CI: 1.0; 6.0] (n = 6), pnon-inferiority < 0.001 for the bioadaptor and the DES, respectively (Δ-1.0% [95% CI: −3.3; 1.4]). One definite or probable device thrombosis occurred in each group. The 12-month imaging endpoints showed superior effectiveness of the bioadaptor such as in-device late lumen loss (0.09 mm [SD 0.34] versus 0.25 mm [SD 0.39], p = 0.04), and restored compliance and cyclic pulsatility (%mid in-device lumen area change of 7.5% versus 2.7%, p < 0.001). Interpretation: This is the first randomised controlled trial comparing the novel bioadaptor technology against a contemporary DES. The bioadaptor demonstrated similar acute performance and 12-month clinical outcomes, and superior imaging endpoints including restoration of vessel function. Funding: The study was funded by Elixir Medical.

Keywords