Everolimus-Eluting Biodegradable Polymer Versus Everolimus-Eluting Durable Polymer Stent for Coronary Revascularization in Routine Clinical Practice.

Zanchin, Christian; Ueki, Yasushi; Zanchin, Thomas; Häner, Jonas; Otsuka, Tatsuhiko; Stortecky, Stefan; Koskinas, Konstantinos C; Siontis, George C M; Praz, Fabien; Moschovitis, Aris; Hunziker, Lukas; Valgimigli, Marco; Pilgrim, Thomas; Heg, Dik; Windecker, Stephan; Räber, Lorenz (2019). Everolimus-Eluting Biodegradable Polymer Versus Everolimus-Eluting Durable Polymer Stent for Coronary Revascularization in Routine Clinical Practice. JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions, 12(17), pp. 1665-1675. Elsevier 10.1016/j.jcin.2019.04.046

[img] Text
2019_JACC_Zanchin_Everolimus Eluting Biodegradable Polymer Versus Everolimus Eluting Durable Stent.pdf - Published Version
Restricted to registered users only
Available under License Publisher holds Copyright.

Download (1MB) | Request a copy

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a thin-strut, biodegradable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent (BP-EES; Synergy) and a thin-strut, durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES; XIENCE) in an all-comers population. BACKGROUND BP-EES have been shown to be noninferior to DP-EES in randomized trials in patients at low to moderate risk. METHODS Among 7,042 consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention between December 2012 and December 2016, 3,870 patients were exclusively treated with BP-EES (n = 1,343) or with DP-EES (n = 2,527). After propensity score matching, the final study population consisted of 1,041 matched patients. The primary endpoint was the device-oriented composite endpoint (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization) at 12 months. RESULTS The device-oriented composite endpoint did not differ between the 2 groups (7.8% with BP-EES vs. 7.1% with DP-EES; hazard ratio: 1.12; 95% confidence interval: 0.81 to 1.53; p = 0.49). There were no differences in rates of cardiac death (3.0% vs. 3.0%, p = 1.00), target vessel myocardial infarction (3.6% vs. 3.1%, p = 0.53), and target lesion revascularization (3.0% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.41). The rate of acute stent thrombosis was significantly higher in the BP-EES group compared with the DP-EES group (1.2% vs. 0.3%; hazard ratio: 4.00; 95% confidence interval: 1.13 to 14.19; p = 0.032). At 12 months, the frequency of definite stent thrombosis did not differ (1.5% vs. 0.9%; hazard ratio: 1.67; 95% confidence interval: 0.73 to 3.82; p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS In this consecutively enrolled percutaneous coronary intervention population reflecting routine clinical practice, no difference in the device-oriented composite endpoint between BP-EES and DP-EES was observed throughout 12 months. There was a higher rate of acute stent thrombosis with the BP-EES, a difference that disappeared at 1 year. (CARDIOBASE Bern PCI Registry; NCT02241291).

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

04 Faculty of Medicine > Department of Cardiovascular Disorders (DHGE) > Clinic of Cardiology
04 Faculty of Medicine > Pre-clinic Human Medicine > CTU Bern

UniBE Contributor:

Zanchin, Christian; Ueki, Yasushi; Zanchin, Thomas; Häner, Jonas; Stortecky, Stefan; Koskinas, Konstantinos; Siontis, Georgios; Praz, Fabien; Moschovitis, Aris; Hunziker, Lukas; Valgimigli, Marco; Pilgrim, Thomas; Heg, Dierik Hans; Windecker, Stephan and Räber, Lorenz

Subjects:

600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health

ISSN:

1876-7605

Publisher:

Elsevier

Language:

English

Submitter:

Amanda Valle

Date Deposited:

27 Aug 2019 13:21

Last Modified:

22 Oct 2019 18:21

Publisher DOI:

10.1016/j.jcin.2019.04.046

PubMed ID:

31422088

Uncontrolled Keywords:

coronary artery disease drug-eluting stent restenosis stent thrombosis

BORIS DOI:

10.7892/boris.132770

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/132770

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback