Key result
Biolimus A9-eluting stents resulted in a higher proportion of uncovered struts (15.9% vs 7.0%, p=0.0001) and reduced mean neointimal area compared to everolimus-eluting stents at 9 months.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to compare vascular healing assessed by optical coherence tomography, angiographic outcomes, and clinical results between biolimus A9 and everolimus drug-eluting stents in patients with STEMI treated by primary PCI.
Does biolimus A9 DES improve stent strut coverage and clinical outcomes compared to everolimus DES in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI?
RCT (n=201)
Single-blind (outcome assessors)
1:1 (sealed envelope)
Yes
Does biolimus A9 DES improve stent strut coverage and clinical outcomes compared to everolimus DES in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI?
Absolute Event Rate: 15.9% vs 7%
p-value: p=0.0001
In STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, biolimus-eluting stents showed reduced neointimal hyperplasia but a higher proportion of uncovered struts at 9 months compared to everolimus-eluting stents, with no difference in 5-year clinical outcomes.
Similar long-term outcomes despite inferior strut coverage with biolimus stents; extends evidence that OCT surrogates may not predict clinical events in STEMI.
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to compare healing (assessed by optical coherence tomography [OCT]) of biolimus A9 (BES) and everolimus drug-eluting stents (EES) at 9-month follow-up in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI). Nine-month clinical and angiographic data were also compared in both groups as well as clinical data at 5 years of follow-up. METHODS: A total of 201 patients with STEMI were enrolled in the study and randomized either to pPCI with BES or EES implantation. All patients were scheduled for 9 months of angiographic and OCT follow-up. RESULTS: The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was comparable at 9 months in both groups (5% in BES vs. 6% in the EES group; p = 0.87). Angiographic data were also comparable between both groups. The main finding at 9-month OCT analysis was the greatly reduced extent of mean neointimal area at the cost of a higher proportion of uncovered struts in the BES group (1.3 mm² vs. 0.9 mm²; p = 0.0001 and 15.9% vs. 7.0%; p = 0.0001, respectively). At 5 years of clinical follow-up the rate of MACE was comparable between both groups (16.8% vs. 14.0%, p = 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates a very low rate of MACE and good 9-month stent strut coverage of second-generation BES and EES in patients with STEMI. BES showed greatly reduced extent of mean neointimal hyperplasia area at the cost of a higher proportion of uncovered struts when compared to EES. The rate of MACE was low and comparable in both groups at 5 years.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jakl et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (n=201). Biolimus A9-eluting stent vs. Everolimus-eluting stent was evaluated on Percentage of uncovered stent struts at 9 months (p=0.0001). Biolimus A9-eluting stents resulted in a higher proportion of uncovered struts (15.9% vs 7.0%, p=0.0001) and reduced mean neointimal area compared to everolimus-eluting stents at 9 months.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: