Key result
Bioresorbable polymer stents show no major cardiovascular events benefit over durable polymer stents in bifurcation lesions.
Why the study?
Bioresorbable polymer drug-eluting stents have shown mixed clinical results in coronary interventions, and their long-term outcomes compared with durable polymer stents in bifurcation lesions remain largely unknown.
Does the use of bioresorbable polymer drug-eluting stents reduce major adverse cardiac events compared to durable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary bifurcation intervention?
Observational (n=3,991)
No
Does the use of bioresorbable polymer drug-eluting stents reduce major adverse cardiac events compared to durable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary bifurcation intervention?
In a large registry of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for bifurcation lesions, bioresorbable polymer stents showed no significant difference in 3-year major adverse cardiac events compared to durable polymer stents.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No MACE difference observed with bioresorbable versus durable polymer stents in bifurcation PCI; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
Background Bioresorbable polymer drug eluding stents in coronary interventions have shown promising, yet mixed results in terms of outcome. The long-term results in case of bifurcation interventions remains largely unknown. Purpose The goal of this study is to elucidate the long-term outcome of usage of bioresorbable polymer stents versus durable stents in a large volume center. Methods We investigated 3991 patients in a large registry undergoing percutaneous coronary bifurcation intervention with a follow up time of three years. 17.9% of patients received bioresorbable polymer and 82.1% received durable polymer stents respectively. Primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) consisting of death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion re-intervention. Survival was analysed with Kaplan-Meier curves and proportional hazard models. Results MACE occurred in 20.7% of patients, which received bioresorbable polymer and in 24.5% of patients which received durable polymer stents respectively. Survival analysis has shown no statistical difference between the types of stents (log rank=0.013, P=0.909). Conclusions Stenting of bioresorbable versus durable polymers in bifurcation lesions have shown no statistical difference after three years.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Laohachewin et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Coronary bifurcation lesions (n=3,991). Bioresorbable polymer drug-eluting stents vs. Durable polymer drug-eluting stents was evaluated on Major adverse cardiac events (MACE: death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion re-intervention) (p=0.909). Bioresorbable polymer stents showed no statistical difference in 3-year major cardiovascular events compared to durable polymer stents in bifurcation lesions.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: