Key result
Bioabsorbable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stents had similar 1-year target vessel revascularization rates compared to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (5.9% vs 4.6%; P=0.45).
Why the study?
Presence of durable polymers in stents may be associated with late stent thrombosis and prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy, while bioabsorbable polymers may enhance stent healing and clinical safety.
Does a bioabsorbable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent improve clinical outcomes compared to a durable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Observational (n=3,298)
Yes
Does a bioabsorbable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent improve clinical outcomes compared to a durable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
In daily clinical practice, thin strut bioabsorbable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stents demonstrate comparable 1-year efficacy and safety to durable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stents.
OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the 1-year clinical follow-up in patients treated with the thin strut (71 μm) bioabsorbable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) vs durable coating everolimus eluting stent (DP-EES) in daily clinical routine. BACKGROUND: Presence of durable polymers may be associated with late/very late stent thrombosis occurrence and the need for prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy. Bioabsorbable polymers may facilitate stent healing, thus enhancing clinical safety. METHODS: Interventional Cardiology Network Registry is a prospective, multicenter, observational registry of 21,400 consecutive patients treated with PCI since 2010. We analyzed 4,670 patients treated with either a BP-SES (ALEX, Balton, Poland) or DP-EES (XIENCE, Abbott, USA) with available 1-year clinical follow-up using propensity-score matching. Outcomes included target vessel revascularization (TVR) as efficacy outcome and all cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and definite/probable stent thrombosis as safety outcomes. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 1,649 patients treated with BP-SES and 1,649 patients treated with DP-EES were selected. Procedural and clinical characteristics were similar between both groups. There was no significant difference between tested groups in in-hospital mortality. One-year follow-up demonstrated comparable efficacy outcome, TVR (BP-SES 5.9% vs DP-EES 4.6% P = 0.45), as well as comparable safety outcomes, all cause death, MI and definite/probable stent thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter registry, the BP-SES thin strut biodegradable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes at 1-year after implantation to the DP-EES. These data support the relative safety and efficacy of DP-SES in a broad range of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gąsior et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Percutaneous coronary intervention (n=3,298). Bioabsorbable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) vs. Durable coating everolimus eluting stent (DP-EES) was evaluated on Target vessel revascularization (TVR) (p=0.45). Bioabsorbable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stents had similar 1-year target vessel revascularization rates compared to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (5.9% vs 4.6%; P=0.45).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: