Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization: 2-Year Results of the BIOSCIENCE Trial.

Details

Ressource 1Download: BIB_7683C9E01567.P001.pdf (1428.83 [Ko])
State: Public
Version: author
Serval ID
serval:BIB_7683C9E01567
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization: 2-Year Results of the BIOSCIENCE Trial.
Journal
Journal of the American Heart Association
Author(s)
Zbinden R., Piccolo R., Heg D., Roffi M., Kurz D.J., Muller O., Vuilliomenet A., Cook S., Weilenmann D., Kaiser C., Jamshidi P., Franzone A., Eberli F., Jüni P., Windecker S., Pilgrim T.
ISSN
2047-9980 (Electronic)
ISSN-L
2047-9980
Publication state
Published
Issued date
2016
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
5
Number
3
Pages
e003255
Language
english
Abstract
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.
Pubmed
Open Access
Yes
Create date
17/03/2016 17:41
Last modification date
20/08/2019 14:33
Usage data