Key result
Biolimus-eluting stents resulted in similar rates of major adverse cardiac events compared to everolimus-eluting stents in diabetic patients undergoing PCI (22.2% vs 17.2%; p=0.34).
Why the study?
Long-term comparison data between biodegradable polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stents and second-generation durable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stents in diabetic patients are scarce.
Does a biodegradable polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent reduce MACE compared to a durable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent in diabetic patients undergoing PCI?
RCT (n=588)
Open-label
2:1
Yes
Does a biodegradable polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent reduce MACE compared to a durable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent in diabetic patients undergoing PCI?
Absolute Event Rate: 22.2% vs 17.2%
p-value: p=0.34
In diabetic patients undergoing PCI, biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents showed similar 5-year MACE and safety outcomes compared to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents.
Supports either BES or EES in diabetic PCI; confirms comparable 5-year MACE between biodegradable and durable polymer stents.
BACKGROUND: Drug eluting stents with biodegradable polymers have been developed to address the risk of very late adverse events. Long-term comparison data between the biodegradable polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent (BES; Nobori®) and the second-generation durable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent (EES; XIENCE V® or XIENCE PRIME® or PROMUS™) in diabetic patients are scarce. METHODS: The COMPARE II trial was an investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, randomized, all-comers trial which assigned patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in a 2:1 fashion to either BES or EES. We analyzed the safety and efficacy outcomes in diabetic patients at 5 year follow-up. The primary pre-specified composite endpoint major adverse cardiac event (MACE) was defined as cardiac death, non-fatal target-vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization (CD-TVR). RESULTS: Out of 2707 study patients, 588 were diabetics (21.7%) of whom 391 were treated with BES and 197 with EES. At 5 years follow-up, MACE occurred in 87 patients (22.2%) in the BES group and in 34 patients (17.2%) in the EES group (p = .34). Other safety and efficacy endpoints did not differ between stent groups. CONCLUSIONS: At 5 years follow-up, no differences in terms of MACE as well as all analyzed safety and efficacy measures, including stent thrombosis, between the biodegradable polymer-coated BES and the durable polymer-coated EES in diabetic patients were observed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Paradies et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in Diabetes mellitus requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (n=588). Biodegradable polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent (BES) vs. Durable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent (EES) was evaluated on Major adverse cardiac event (MACE) defined as cardiac death, non-fatal target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization (p=0.34). Biolimus-eluting stents resulted in similar rates of major adverse cardiac events compared to everolimus-eluting stents in diabetic patients undergoing PCI (22.2% vs 17.2%; p=0.34).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: