Key result
Ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents showed no significant difference in 5-year target lesion failure compared with thin-strut durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents.
Why the study?
Randomized trials evaluating the Orsiro biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent did not stratify by vessel size and failed to specify the impact of ultrathin-strut thickness on long-term clinical outcomes compared with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents.
Does ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent reduce target lesion failure compared to thin-strut durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in patients with small vessel coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
RCT
randomly assigned
Yes
Does ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent reduce target lesion failure compared to thin-strut durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in patients with small vessel coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
p-value: p=0.13
Ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents provide similar long-term clinical outcomes to thin-strut durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing PCI for small vessel disease.
Either stent acceptable for small vessel PCI; confirms long-term TLF equivalence in RCT.
BACKGROUND: Randomized trials evaluating the Orsiro biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES; 60 and 80 μm strut thickness for stent diameters ≤3 and >3 mm, respectively) did not stratify according to vessel size and failed to specify the impact of ultrathin-strut thickness on long-term clinical outcomes compared with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES). We sought to assess the long-term effect of ultrathin-strut (60 μm) BP-SES versus thin-strut (81 μm) DP-EES on long-term outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization for small vessel disease. METHODS: In a subgroup analysis of the randomized, multicenter, noninferiority BIOSCIENCE trial, patients with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome randomly assigned to treatment with BP-SES or DP-EES were stratified according to vessel size (≤3 mm versus >3 mm) as a surrogate to compare patients treated with ultrathin-strut versus thin-strut drug-eluting stent. The primary end point was target lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization, within 5 years. RESULTS: =0.13). Cumulative incidences of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization and definite stent thrombosis at 5 years were similar in patients treated with ultrathin-strut BP-SES and thin-strut DP-EES. After adjustment for potential confounders, there was no significant interaction between vessel size and treatment effect of BP-SES versus DP-EES. CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant difference in clinical outcomes throughout 5 years between patients with small vessel disease treated with ultrathin-strut BP-SES versus thin-strut DP-EES. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01443104.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Iglesias et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in small vessel coronary artery disease. Ultrathin-strut (60 μm) biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) vs. Thin-strut (81 μm) durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) was evaluated on target lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization, within 5 years (p=0.13). Ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents showed no significant difference in 5-year target lesion failure compared with thin-strut durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: