Key result
Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents significantly reduced target lesion revascularization compared to durable polymer stents (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.47-0.98; p=0.04), but did not improve mortality.
Why the study?
Do biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents improve clinical and angiographic outcomes compared to durable polymer drug eluting stents in patients with obstructive coronary artery disease?
Meta-Analysis (n=5,834)
Do biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents improve clinical and angiographic outcomes compared to durable polymer drug eluting stents in patients with obstructive coronary artery disease?
Odds Ratio: 0.67 (95% CI 0.47–0.98)
p-value: p=0.04
In patients with obstructive CAD, biodegradable polymer DES reduce late lumen loss and target lesion revascularization compared to durable polymer DES, without affecting mortality, MI, or stent thrombosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Reduces repeat procedures without mortality benefit; confirms biodegradable polymer DES advantages on revascularization endpoints in meta-analysis.
Lupi et al. (2012) conducted a meta-analysis in Coronary artery disease (CAD) (n=5,834). Biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents (BP-DES) vs. Durable polymer drug eluting stents (DP-DES) was evaluated on Target lesion revascularization (TLR) (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.98, p=0.04). Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents significantly reduced target lesion revascularization compared to durable polymer stents (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.47-0.98; p=0.04), but did not improve mortality.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: