Why the study?
Clear superiority regarding the efficacy and safety of ultrathin BP SES compared with DP EES has not been consistently proven.
Do ultrathin bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents reduce myocardial infarction and improve safety compared to thin durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents?
Do ultrathin bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents reduce myocardial infarction and improve safety compared to thin durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Ultrathin bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents reduce the risk of myocardial infarction compared to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents, but may be associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality at longer-term follow-up.
OBJECTIVE: Ultrathin bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP SES) have been proposed as an alternative to thin durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP DES). Although BP SES show a significant decrease in target lesion failure rates, clear superiority with respect to efficacy and safety of BP SES in comparison to DP EES has not been consistently proven. METHODS AND RESULTS: A comprehensive search of several electronic databases identified studies that assessed efficacy and safety of BP SES, compared with DP EES. Relative risks (RRs) were pooled across studies using a fixed-effects model and a random-effect model, respectively, calculating pooled RRs and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The I statistic was used to assess heterogeneity. We retrieved six studies enrolling >7000 patients. BP SES significantly reduced the risk of target vessel myocardial infarction (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97; I = 0%; Test for overall effect: z = 2.24, P = 0.03) in comparison with DP EES using a random-effects model. Use of BP SES was associated with a significant reduction in any myocardial infarction (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.98; I = 12%; Test for overall effect: z = 2.19, P = 0.03), using a fixed-effects model. The subgroup analyses demonstrated, following-up ≥2 years, a statistically significant 27% RR increase in the risk of all-case death for patients randomized to BP SES (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.01-1.60; I = 0%; Test for overall effect: z = 2.08, P = 0.04). No differences in cardiac death, stent thrombosis events (STE), target lesion revascularization (TLR) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) between BP SES and DP EES were observed. CONCLUSION: BP SES significantly reduced the risk of any myocardial infarction and target vessel myocardial infarction in comparison with DP EES. There were no differences in cardiac death, STE, TLR, TVR and all-cause death with its follow-up time <2 year between BP SES and DP EES. Following-up ≥2 years, a statistically significant 27% RR increase in the risk of all-case death for patients randomized to BP SES was observed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhai et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: