Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Safety and efficacy profile of bioresorbable-polylactide-polymer-biolimus-A9-eluting stents versus durable-polymer-everolimus- and zotarolimus-eluting stents in patients with acute coronary syndrome


Jaguszewski, Milosz; Dörig, Manuela; Frangieh, Antonio H; Ghadri, Jelena-Rima; Cammann, Victoria Lucia; Diekmann, Johanna; Napp, L Christian; D'Ascenzo, Fabrizio; Imori, Yoichi; Obeid, Slayman; Maier, Willibald; Lüscher, Thomas F; Templin, Christian (2016). Safety and efficacy profile of bioresorbable-polylactide-polymer-biolimus-A9-eluting stents versus durable-polymer-everolimus- and zotarolimus-eluting stents in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 88(6):173-182.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Comparative data on long-term safety and efficacy of bioresorbable-polymer-BES versus durable-polymer-EES/ZES in ACS setting have hitherto been lacking. We sought to assess the safety and efficacy of bioresorbable-polymer-biolimus-A9-eluting stents (BES) compared with thin-strut-durable-polymer-everolimus- and zotarolimus-eluting stents (EES/ZES) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing PCI.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2012, 1,547 patients were implanted with new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES). Out of these, 369 received BES and 1,178 EES/ZES. The primary endpoint was probable/definite stent thrombosis (ST) while the secondary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR) and definite ST up to 5 years. As stent assignment was not random, we performed a propensity score matching (PSM), with 1:3 ratio, to account for potential confounders. Primary analysis demonstrated no significant differences between both groups for the primary endpoint of ST (BES vs.
EES/ZES: 1.6% vs. 1.9%; mean-event-time = 1,797 days vs. 1,795 days, respectively; P = 0.75) and composite safety endpoint (BES vs.
EES/ZES: 12.5% vs. 12.9%; mean-event-time = 1,631 days vs. 1,620 days, respectively; P = 0.88). Results regarding the 5-year-ST- and safety endpoint remained non-significant after PSM (P = 0.85, P = 0.56; respectively). After stratification based on cardiovascular risk, no difference regarding ST and composite outcome measure has been documented between both stent groups in high-risk- and low-risk patients. The type of stent did neither predict ST (HR 1.11, 95%CI 0.45-2.74, P = 0.82) nor composite safety endpoint (HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.67-1.30, P = 0.69).
CONCLUSIONS: Long-term safety and efficacy of bioresorbable-polymer-BES and durable-polymer-EES/ZES appear comparable in patients with ACS. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Comparative data on long-term safety and efficacy of bioresorbable-polymer-BES versus durable-polymer-EES/ZES in ACS setting have hitherto been lacking. We sought to assess the safety and efficacy of bioresorbable-polymer-biolimus-A9-eluting stents (BES) compared with thin-strut-durable-polymer-everolimus- and zotarolimus-eluting stents (EES/ZES) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing PCI.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2012, 1,547 patients were implanted with new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES). Out of these, 369 received BES and 1,178 EES/ZES. The primary endpoint was probable/definite stent thrombosis (ST) while the secondary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR) and definite ST up to 5 years. As stent assignment was not random, we performed a propensity score matching (PSM), with 1:3 ratio, to account for potential confounders. Primary analysis demonstrated no significant differences between both groups for the primary endpoint of ST (BES vs.
EES/ZES: 1.6% vs. 1.9%; mean-event-time = 1,797 days vs. 1,795 days, respectively; P = 0.75) and composite safety endpoint (BES vs.
EES/ZES: 12.5% vs. 12.9%; mean-event-time = 1,631 days vs. 1,620 days, respectively; P = 0.88). Results regarding the 5-year-ST- and safety endpoint remained non-significant after PSM (P = 0.85, P = 0.56; respectively). After stratification based on cardiovascular risk, no difference regarding ST and composite outcome measure has been documented between both stent groups in high-risk- and low-risk patients. The type of stent did neither predict ST (HR 1.11, 95%CI 0.45-2.74, P = 0.82) nor composite safety endpoint (HR 0.93, 95%CI 0.67-1.30, P = 0.69).
CONCLUSIONS: Long-term safety and efficacy of bioresorbable-polymer-BES and durable-polymer-EES/ZES appear comparable in patients with ACS. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Statistics

Citations

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Clinic for Cardiology
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:15 November 2016
Deposited On:06 Feb 2017 13:56
Last Modified:06 Feb 2017 13:59
Publisher:Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
ISSN:1522-1946
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.26617
PubMed ID:27377554

Download

Full text not available from this repository.
View at publisher