Why the study?
Long-term clinical data on biodegradable-polymer drug-eluting stents were limited.
Does a biodegradable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent improve long-term clinical outcomes compared to a durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease?
Does a biodegradable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent improve long-term clinical outcomes compared to a durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease?
Biodegradable-polymer and durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents provide comparable long-term safety and efficacy at 5 years in real-world practice.
Similar 5-year outcomes with SYNERGY BP-DES and XIENCE DP-DES; observational data leave optimal long-term stent choice open.
BACKGROUND: Long-term clinical data on biodegradable-polymer (BP) drug-eluting stents (DES) are limited. The objective of this study was to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of the BP-DES SYNERGY compared to XIENCE V, a durable-polymer (DP)-DES. METHODS: We compared patients treated with BP-DES or DP-DES at our center from 2008 to 2020. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause death, Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Secondary endpoints were all-cause death, Q-wave MI, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and stent thrombosis (ST). RESULTS: A total of 4255 patients underwent propensity-score matching, and 380 patients from each cohort were matched. There was no significant difference between BP-DES and DP-DES concerning MACE (5-year estimates: 21.6% vs. 26.6%, log-rank p = 0.259). Furthermore, there was no difference in the TLR rate (5-year estimates: 7.3% vs. 8.6%, log-rank p = 0.781). All-cause death (5-year estimates: 13.6% vs. 12.9%, log-rank p = 0.72) and Q-wave MI (5-year estimates: 0.53% vs. 1.7%, log-rank p = 0.427) were also comparable between the two groups. Of note, the rate of very late ST was very low and similar between the groups (5-year estimates: 0.26% vs. 0.64%, log-rank p = 0.698). CONCLUSION: BP-DES and DP-DES demonstrate similar safety and efficacy at 5-year follow-up. Both can be used for the effective treatment of coronary artery disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abusnina et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: