Key result
Biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents resulted in similar rates of target vessel failure at 2 years compared to durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (6.8% and 6.6% vs 8.3%, respectively).
Why the study?
Does treatment with biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stents reduce target vessel failure compared to durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents in all-comer patients requiring PCI?
RCT (n=3,514)
1:1:1
Yes
Does treatment with biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stents reduce target vessel failure compared to durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents in all-comer patients requiring PCI?
Hazard Ratio: 0.82 (95% CI 0.61–1.1)
Absolute Event Rate: 6.8% vs 8.3%
p-value: p=0.19
In all-comer PCI patients, very thin-strut biodegradable polymer everolimus- and sirolimus-eluting stents demonstrated similar 2-year safety and efficacy compared to durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents.
Supports the interchangeable use of these contemporary drug-eluting stents in routine PCI;.
AIMS: The aim of the study was to evaluate the two-year clinical outcome of all-comer trial participants who were treated with two very different thin-strut biodegradable polymer versus thin-strut durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DES). Prolonged clinical outcome after discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy is of particular interest, given the highly dissimilar polymer types, amount, distribution, and degradation speed of both biodegradable polymer DES. METHODS AND RESULTS: The BIO-RESORT trial (NCT01674803) randomly assigned 3,514 patients to treatment with biodegradable polymer SYNERGY everolimus-eluting stents (EES) or Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stents (SES), or durable polymer Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES). At two-year follow-up (available in 98.8%), the rate of the primary composite endpoint target vessel failure (TVF) was 8.3% in ZES versus 6.8% in EES (p=0.19) and 6.6% in SES (p=0.12). Landmark analyses at one year revealed differences between SES and ZES in the rates of target lesion revascularisation and target lesion failure (0.6% vs. 1.5%, p=0.04, and 1.1% vs. 2.4%, p=0.02, respectively) as well as other composite secondary endpoints that reached statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: At two-year follow-up, there was no significant between-DES difference in the rates of the primary endpoint. Landmark analyses provided a signal that the use of SES versus ZES might reduce the risk of repeat revascularisation after one-year follow-up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kok et al. (2018) conducted an RCT in Coronary artery disease requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (n=3,514). Biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (EES) or sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) vs. Durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) was evaluated on Target vessel failure (composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target vessel revascularisation) at 2 years (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61-1.10, p=0.19). Biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents resulted in similar rates of target vessel failure at 2 years compared to durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (6.8% and 6.6% vs 8.3%, respectively).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: