Key result
Biolimus-eluting stents were associated with a lower risk of MACE compared to everolimus-eluting stents at 3 years in acute myocardial infarction patients (HR 0.773; 95% CI 0.676-0.884; P<0.001).
Why the study?
Biolimus-eluting stents (BES) are superior to bare-metal stents, but their safety and efficacy compared to other drug-eluting stents in acute myocardial infarction patients needed evaluation.
Do biolimus-eluting stents improve clinical outcomes compared to everolimus-eluting or zotarolimus-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing PCI?
Cohort (n=9,759)
Yes
Do biolimus-eluting stents improve clinical outcomes compared to everolimus-eluting or zotarolimus-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing PCI?
Hazard Ratio: 0.773 (95% CI 0.676–0.884)
Absolute Event Rate: 15.8% vs 17.5%
p-value: p=<0.001
In real-world AMI patients undergoing PCI, biolimus-eluting stents were associated with significantly lower rates of MACE, TLF, and mortality at 3 years compared to everolimus- or zotarolimus-eluting stents.
May support biolimus-eluting stent preference in AMI PCI; leaves open randomized confirmation before practice change.
Introduction. Biolimus-eluting stents (BES) are known to be superior to bare-metal stents. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of BES compared to other drug-eluting stents (DES) based on big data from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR). Methods. The study analyzed a total of 9,759 acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with DES. Total death, cardiac death, recurrent MI, revascularization, stent thrombosis, target lesion failure (TLF, composite of cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE, composite of total death, recurrent MI, and revascularization) were analyzed in patients with AMI up to three years. Study populations were divided into BES (n = 2,020), everolimus-eluting stents (EES, n = 5,293), and zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES, n = 2,446) groups. Results. To adjust baseline potential confounders, an inverse probability weighting (IPTW) analysis was performed. After IPTW, at three years, total death (7.2%, 8.6%, and 9.5%, P < 0.001 ), cardiac death (4.1%, 5.3%, and 6.6%, P < 0.001 ), recurrent MI (1.6%, 2.6%, and 3.2%, P < 0.001 ), TLF (6.5%, 8.1%, and 9.1%, P < 0.001 ), and MACE (15.8%, 17.5%, and 18.2%, P < 0.001 ) were lowest in the BES group compared with the other DES groups in AMI patients. During the 3-year clinical follow-up, the BES group showed better outcomes of MACE (hazard ratio (HR), 0.773; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.676–0.884; P < 0.001 ), TLF (HR, 0.659; 95% CI, 0.538–0.808; P < 0.001 ), total death (HR, 0.687; 95% CI, 0.566–0.835; P < 0.001 ), and cardiac death (HR,0.593; 95% CI, 0.462–0.541; P < 0.001 ) than the EES groups. Conclusions. In this study, BES was superior to EES or ZES in reducing total death, cardiac death, TLF, and MACE in AMI patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Acute myocardial infarction (n=9,759). Biolimus-eluting stents vs. Everolimus-eluting stents and zotarolimus-eluting stents was evaluated on Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (HR 0.773, 95% CI 0.676-0.884, p=<0.001). Biolimus-eluting stents were associated with a lower risk of MACE compared to everolimus-eluting stents at 3 years in acute myocardial infarction patients (HR 0.773; 95% CI 0.676-0.884; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: