Why the study?
Does the latest generation drug-eluting stent reduce major cardiovascular events compared to bare metal stents in patients ≥75 years old undergoing coronary revascularisation with short dual antiplatelet therapy?
Does the latest generation drug-eluting stent reduce major cardiovascular events compared to bare metal stents in patients ≥75 years old undergoing coronary revascularisation with short dual antiplatelet therapy?
The SENIOR trial aims to determine if newer-generation DES with short DAPT improves outcomes compared to BMS in elderly patients undergoing coronary revascularization.
Tests DES with short DAPT vs BMS in elderly; extends revascularization evidence to this high-risk group.
AIMS: In the elderly population, bare metal stents (BMS) are often preferred over drug-eluting stents (DES) because of the longer duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) associated with the latter. The SENIOR trial is designed to determine whether one of the latest generation of DES can reduce major cardiovascular events compared to BMS, despite a similar short DAPT duration. METHODS AND RESULTS: The SENIOR trial is a multicentre, single-blind, prospective, randomised trial comparing the latest generation DES (SYNERGY™ II; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA) to BMS (Rebel™; Boston Scientific) in 1,200 patients ≥75 years old. DAPT will be given for one or six months according to clinical presentation, irrespective of stent type. The primary outcome is the composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke or ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation at one year. Secondary endpoints include the rate of major bleedings and the rate of stent thrombosis at one year. CONCLUSIONS: This trial is designed to evaluate a new revascularisation strategy combining DES and short duration DAPT in elderly patients. It has the potential to decrease the need for target lesion revascularisation without a significant DAPT-related increase in bleeding compared to BMS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Varenne et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: