Why the study?
No randomised trials had reported 10-year clinical outcomes comparing biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents.
Do biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents improve long-term clinical outcomes compared to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease?
Do biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents improve long-term clinical outcomes compared to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease?
Biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents demonstrate similar safety and efficacy outcomes compared to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents up to 10 years after implantation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports either stent choice in CAD; confirms sustained equivalence of BP-BES and DP-EES to 10 years.
BACKGROUND: There are no randomised trials reporting clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES) and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) at 10 years. AIMS: We aimed to compare the 10-year clinical outcomes between BP-BES and DP-EES. METHODS: The randomised NOBORI Biolimus-Eluting Versus XIENCE/PROMUS Everolimus-eluting Stent Trial (NEXT) was originally designed to evaluate the non-inferiority of BP-BES relative to DP-EES with the primary efficacy endpoint of target lesion revascularisation (TLR) at 1 year and the primary safety endpoint of death or myocardial infarction (MI) at 3 years. In this extended follow-up study, clinical outcomes were compared from 1 year after stent implantation up to 10 years between patients with BP-BES and DP-EES. RESULTS: From May to October 2011, NEXT enrolled a total of 3,241 patients from 98 centres in Japan. The current study population consisted of 2,417 patients (1,204 patients with BP-BES and 1,213 with DP-EES) from 66 centres that agreed to participate in the extended study. Complete 10-year follow-up was achieved in 87.5% of patients. The cumulative 10-year incidence of death or MI was 34.0% in the BP-BES group and 33.1% in the DP-EES group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90-1.20; p=0.58). TLR occurred in 15.9% of patients in the BP-BES group and in 14.1% of the DP-EES group (HR 1.12, 95% CI: 0.90-1.40; p=0.32). In a landmark analysis at 1 year, the cumulative incidences of death or MI and TLR were not significantly different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The safety and efficacy outcomes for BP-BES were not significantly different from those for DP-EES at 1 year and up to 10 years after stent implantation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Natsuaki et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: