Key result
Biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents resulted in similar 5-year rates of target lesion failure compared to durable polymer stents (HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.79-1.28).
Why the study?
To compare the long-term, 5-year outcomes of a biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent versus a durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease.
Does a biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent improve 5-year outcomes compared to a durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease?
RCT (n=2,737)
2:1 ratio
Does a biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent improve 5-year outcomes compared to a durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease?
Hazard Ratio: 1.01 (95% CI 0.79–1.28)
At 5 years, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents showed similar safety and efficacy to durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents, with no significant difference between 6 and 12 months of DAPT.
No long-term advantage for biodegradable over durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents; confirms 5-year equivalence in this RCT.
AIMS: This analysis presents the final five-year results of the I-LOVE-IT 2 trial, a non-inferiority study comparing a biodegradable polymer (BP) sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) with a durable polymer (DP) SES in patients with coronary artery disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: Overall, 2,737 Chinese patients eligible for coronary stenting were treated with BP-SES or DP-SES in a 2:1 ratio. Patients who were randomised to the BP-SES group were additionally re-randomised to receive either six-month or 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was 12-month target lesion failure (TLF: cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation). At five years, the overall follow-up rate was 90.8%, and the cumulative incidence of TLF as the primary endpoint was similar between BP-SES and DP-SES (hazard ratio [HR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79 to 1.28), as was that for the patient-oriented composite endpoint (PoCE: all-cause death, all MI and any revascularisation) (HR 1.03, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.23), or definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST) (HR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.77). Cumulative events were also similar between the six-month DAPT and 12-month DAPT groups after BP-SES implantation. CONCLUSIONS: I-LOVE-IT 2 showed that the five-year safety and efficacy of BP-SES and DP-SES were similar, as were those between six months and 12 months of DAPT after BP-SES implantation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xu et al. (2021) conducted an RCT in Coronary artery disease (n=2,737). Biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent vs. Durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent was evaluated on Target lesion failure (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation) (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.79-1.28). Biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents resulted in similar 5-year rates of target lesion failure compared to durable polymer stents (HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.79-1.28).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: