Key result
BP-SES yields similar 2-year target-lesion failure rates compared to DP-EES.
Why the study?
Does ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents reduce target-lesion failure compared to durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
RCT (n=2,119)
Does ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents reduce target-lesion failure compared to durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Relative Risk: 1 (95% CI 0.77–1.31)
Absolute Event Rate: 10.5% vs 10.4%
p-value: p=0.979
Ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents demonstrate comparable safety and efficacy to durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents at 2 years in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
Supports either stent choice in PCI without outcome compromise; confirms comparable long-term performance of biodegradable-polymer platforms.
BACKGROUND: No data are available on the long-term performance of ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES). We reported 2-year clinical outcomes of the BIOSCIENCE (Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularisation) trial, which compared BP-SES with durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 2119 patients with minimal exclusion criteria were assigned to treatment with BP-SES (n=1063) or DP-EES (n=1056). Follow-up at 2 years was available for 2048 patients (97%). The primary end point was target-lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization. At 2 years, target-lesion failure occurred in 107 patients (10.5%) in the BP-SES arm and 107 patients (10.4%) in the DP-EES arm (risk ratio [RR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.77-1.31, P=0.979). There were no significant differences between BP-SES and DP-EES with respect to cardiac death (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.62-1.63, P=0.984), target-vessel myocardial infarction (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.60-1.39, P=0.669), target-lesion revascularization (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.81-1.71, P=0.403), and definite stent thrombosis (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.56-3.44, P=0.485). There were 2 cases (0.2%) of definite very late stent thrombosis in the BP-SES arm and 4 cases (0.4%) in the DP-EES arm (P=0.423). In the prespecified subgroup of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, BP-SES was associated with a lower risk of target-lesion failure compared with DP-EES (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.23-0.99, P=0.043, Pinteraction=0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Comparable safety and efficacy profiles of BP-SES and DP-EES were maintained throughout 2 years of follow-up. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01443104.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zbinden et al. (2016) conducted an RCT in percutaneous coronary intervention (n=2,119). Ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) vs. Durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) was evaluated on target-lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.77-1.31, p=0.979). Biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents yielded similar 2-year target-lesion failure rates compared to durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (10.5% vs 10.4%; RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.77-1.31).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: