Key result
Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents showed similar rates of 1-year target lesion failure compared to second-generation durable polymer stents (8.7% vs 9.1%, P=0.823; HR 0.94).
Why the study?
Do biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents reduce target lesion failure compared to second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Cohort (n=1,065)
Do biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents reduce target lesion failure compared to second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Hazard Ratio: 0.94
Absolute Event Rate: 8.7% vs 9.1%
p-value: p=.823
In a real-world PCI registry, biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents showed comparable 1-year efficacy and safety to second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents.
Supports comparable 1-year target lesion failure in real-world PCI; leaves open randomized confirmation of benefit versus durable polymer stents.
AIMS: The safety and efficacy of BP-DES compared to second-generation DP-DES remain unclear in the real-world setting. We compared the clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) with second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) in an all-comer percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) registry. METHODS/RESULTS: The study included a cohort of 1065 patients treated with either BP-DES or DP-DES from January 2009 through October 2015. Propensity score matching was performed to account for potential confounders and produced 497 matched pairs of patients. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF) at one-year follow-up. The rates of TLF were comparable between BP-DES and DP-DES (8.7% vs 9.1%, P = .823) at 1 year. The rates of stent thrombosis at 30 days (0.4% vs 0.4%, P = 1.00) and 1 year (0.8% vs 0.8%, P = 1.00) did not differ between BP-DES and DP-DES. There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes including target vessel failure (8.9% vs 9.5%, P = .741), in-stent restenosis (1.8% vs 1.0%, P = .282), and cardiac death (6.4% vs 7.4%, P = .533) at 1 year. Multivariate cox regression analysis showed that the risk of TLF at one-year did not differ significantly between BP-DES and DP-DES (hazard ratio 0.94, P = .763). CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy and safety of BP-DES were not better than DP-DES at one-year follow-up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhao et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Percutaneous coronary intervention (n=1,065). Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) vs. Second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) was evaluated on Target lesion failure (TLF) at one-year follow-up (HR 0.94, p=.823). Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents showed similar rates of 1-year target lesion failure compared to second-generation durable polymer stents (8.7% vs 9.1%, P=0.823; HR 0.94).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: