Why the study?
Do biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES) reduce adverse cardiac events compared to durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) in patients undergoing PCI?
Do biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES) reduce adverse cardiac events compared to durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) in patients undergoing PCI?
At 5 years of follow-up, biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents significantly reduce the risk of MACE, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis compared to durable polymer drug-eluting stents.
BP-BES associated with lower 5-year MACE, TLR, and ST; extends shorter-term data but leaves open confirmation in contemporary RCTs.
Biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BP-BES) are third-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) composed of biodegradable polymers that may improve prognosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). After five years of follow-up, BP-BES showed conflicting results compared to durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES). We performed a meta-analysis of the outcomes of studies on BP-BES and DP-DES after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at five years of follow-up. Eligible studies were retrieved from PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library and reported the results of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR) and stent thrombosis (ST) at five years of follow-up. Five studies of a total of 4687 patients were included in the meta-analysis. At five years of follow-up, BP-BES was associated with lower rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (OR = 0.83, 95%CI = [0.71, 0.97]), TLR (OR = 0.77, 95%CI = [0.62, 0.96]) and ST (OR = 0.60, 95%CI = [0.43 to 0.84]), whereas no significant differences in mortality, MI, or TVR rates were detected. Our results demonstrated that at five years of follow-up, BP-BES can significantly reduce the risk of MACE, TLR and ST, which indicate that safety and efficacy were increased after PCI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pan et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: