Dataset Information

Thin Strut CoCr Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus A9-Eluting Stents versus Thicker Strut Stainless Steel Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus A9-Eluting Stents: Two-Year Clinical Outcomes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

While thinner struts are associated with improved clinical outcomes in bare-metal stents (BMS), reducing strut thickness may affect drug delivery from drug-eluting stents (DES) and there are limited data comparing otherwise similar thin and thick strut DES. We assessed 2-year outcomes of patients treated with a thin strut (84-88um) cobalt-chromium, biodegradable polymer, Biolimus A9-eluting stent (CoCr-BP-BES) and compared these to patients treated with a stainless steel, biodegradable polymer, Biolimus A9-eluting stent (SS-BP-BES).

Methods

In total, 1257 patients were studied: 400 patients from 12 centres receiving ≥1 CoCr-BP-BES in the prospective Biomatrix Alpha registry underwent prespecified comparison with 857 patients who received ≥1 Biomatrix Flex SS-BP-BES in the LEADERS study (historical control). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE)-cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically driven target vessel revascularization (cd-TVR). Propensity analysis was used to adjust for differences in baseline variables and a landmark analysis at day-3 to account for differences in periprocedural MI definitions.

Results

MACE at 2 years occurred in 6.65% CoCr-BP-BES versus 13.23% SS-BP-BES groups (unadjusted HR 0.48 [0.31-0.73]; P=0.0005). Following propensity analysis, 2-year adjusted MACE rates were 7.4% versus 13.3% (HR 0.53 [0.35-0.79]; P=0.004). Definite or probable stent thrombosis, adjudicated using identical criteria in both studies, occurred less frequently with CoCr-BP-BES (1.12% vs. 3.22%; adjusted HR 0.32 [0.11-0.9]; P=0.034). In day-3 landmark analysis, the difference in 2-year MACE was no longer significant but there was a lower patient-orientated composite endpoint (11.7% vs. 18.4%; HR 0.6 [0.43-0.83]; P=0.006) and a trend to lower target vessel failure (5.8% vs. 9.1%; HR 0.63 [0.4-1.00]; P=0.078).

Conclusion

At 2-year follow-up, propensity-adjusted analysis showed the thin strut (84-88um) Biomatrix Alpha CoCr-BP-BES was associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with the thicker strut (114-120um) Biomatrix Flex SS-BP-BES.

SUBMITTER: Menown IBA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8032541 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the safety and efficacy of durable polymer drug eluting stents (DES) and biodegradable polymer biolimus eluting stents (biolimus-ES).DesignNetwork meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sources and study selectionMedline, Google Scholar, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) database search for randomised controlled trials comparing at least two of durable polymer sirolimus eluting stents (sirolimus-ES) and paclitaxel eluting stents (paclitaxel-ES), newer durable polymer everolimus eluting stents (everolimus-ES), Endeavor and Resolute zotarolimus eluting stents (zotarolimus-ES), and biodegradable polymer biolimus-ES.Primary outcomesSafety (death, myocardial infarction, definite or probable stent thrombosis) and efficacy (target lesion and target vessel revascularisation) assessed at up to one year and beyond.Results60 randomised controlled trials were compared involving 63,242 patients with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome treated with a DES. At one year, there were no differences in mortality among devices. Resolute and Endeavor zotarolimus-ES, everolimus-ES, and sirolimus-ES, but not biodegradable polymer biolimus-ES, were associated with significantly reduced odds of myocardial infarction (by 29-34%) compared with paclitaxel-ES. Compared with everolimus-ES, biodegradable polymer biolimus-ES were associated with significantly increased odds of myocardial infarction (by 29%), while Endeavor zotarolimus-ES and paclitaxel-ES were associated with significantly increased odds of stent thrombosis. All investigated DES were similar with regards to efficacy endpoints, except for Endeavor zotarolimus-ES and paclitaxel-ES, which were associated with significantly increased the odds of target lesion and target vessel revascularisations compared with other devices. Direction of results beyond one year did not diverge from the findings for up to one year follow-up. Bayesian probability curves showed a gradient in the magnitude of effect, with everolimus-ES and Resolute zotarolimus-ES offering the highest safety profiles.ConclusionsThe newer durable polymer everolimus-ES and Resolute zotarolimus-ES and the biodegradable polymer biolimus-ES maintain the efficacy of sirolimus-ES; however, for safety endpoints, differences become apparent, with everolimus-ES and Resolute zotarolimus-ES emerging as the safest stents to date.