Clinical and angiographic outcomes of bioabsorbable vs. permanent polymer drug-eluting stents in Sweden: a report from the Swedish Coronary and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR)
Key result
Bioabsorbable polymer drug-eluting stents did not reduce the 2-year risk of restenosis compared to permanent polymer stents (adjusted HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.74-1.21; P=0.670).
Why the study?
Randomized trials showed non-inferiority between bioabsorbable and permanent polymer drug-eluting stents, but their comparative performance in real-world practice had not been extensively investigated.
Does the use of bioabsorbable polymer drug-eluting stents reduce restenosis, stent thrombosis, death, or MI compared to permanent polymer drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Population
16 504 BP-DES and 79 106 PP-DES implanted in Sweden
Comparison
Bioabsorbable polymer DES vs permanent polymer DES
Design
Nationwide registry-based cohort study
Follow-up
2 years
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
BP-DES showed no incremental benefit over PP-DES at 2 years in real-world use; leaves open whether polymer type affects longer-term outcomes.
Study Design
Type
Cohort
Multicenter
Yes
Structured PICO
Does the use of bioabsorbable polymer drug-eluting stents reduce restenosis, stent thrombosis, death, or MI compared to permanent polymer drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
P
Population
A nationwide, unselected cohort of patients in Sweden undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with newer generation drug-eluting stents, followed for 2 years.
E
Exposure
Bioabsorbable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES)
C
Comparator
Permanent polymer drug-eluting stents (PP-DES)
O
Outcome
Restenosis and definite stent thrombosis at 2 yearshard clinical
Main Result
Hazard Ratio: 0.95 (95% CI 0.74–1.21)
Absolute Event Rate: 1.2% vs 1.4%
p-value: p=0.670
In a large real-world nationwide registry, bioabsorbable polymer drug-eluting stents did not provide incremental clinical benefit over permanent polymer drug-eluting stents at 2 years follow-up.
Cite This Study
Buccheri et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Percutaneous coronary intervention. Bioabsorbable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) vs. Permanent polymer drug-eluting stents (PP-DES) was evaluated on Restenosis (adjusted HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.74-1.21, p=0.670). Bioabsorbable polymer drug-eluting stents did not reduce the 2-year risk of restenosis compared to permanent polymer stents (adjusted HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.74-1.21; P=0.670).