Key result
Durable polymer DES was noninferior to biodegradable polymer DES for the patient-oriented composite outcome at 12 months in patients with ACS (5.2% vs 6.4%; P<0.001 for noninferiority).
Why the study?
Does durable polymer drug-eluting stent prevent patient-oriented composite outcomes compared to biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stent in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
RCT (n=3,413)
open-label, adjudicator-blinded
randomized
Yes
Does durable polymer drug-eluting stent prevent patient-oriented composite outcomes compared to biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stent in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Absolute Risk Reduction: 1.2
Absolute Event Rate: 5.2% vs 6.4%
Absolute Risk Reduction: 1.2%
p-value: p=<0.001 for noninferiority
In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing PCI, durable polymer drug-eluting stents are noninferior to biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents for 12-month patient-oriented composite outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Durable polymer DES remain appropriate first-line for ACS PCI; confirms noninferiority to biodegradable polymer stents in this RCT.
Kim et al. (2020) conducted an RCT in acute coronary syndrome (n=3,413). Durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) vs. Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) was evaluated on patient-oriented composite outcome (a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and any repeat revascularization) at 12 months (absolute risk difference -1.2%, p=<0.001 for noninferiority). Durable polymer DES was noninferior to biodegradable polymer DES for the patient-oriented composite outcome at 12 months in patients with ACS (5.2% vs 6.4%; P<0.001 for noninferiority).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: