TY - JOUR
T1 - Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease
T2 - Final 5-Year Report From the COMPARE II Trial (Abluminal Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent)
AU - Vlachojannis, Georgios J
AU - Smits, Pieter C
AU - Hofma, Sjoerd H
AU - Togni, Mario
AU - Vázquez, Nicolás
AU - Valdés, Mariano
AU - Voudris, Vassilis
AU - Slagboom, Ton
AU - Goy, Jean-Jaques
AU - den Heijer, Peter
AU - van der Ent, Martin
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation
PY - 2017/6/26
Y1 - 2017/6/26
N2 - OBJECTIVES: This analysis investigates the 5-year outcomes of the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent (BP-BES) and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES) in an all-comers population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.BACKGROUND: Recent 1- and 3-year results from randomized trials have indicated similar safety and efficacy outcomes of BP-BES and DP-EES. Whether benefits of the biodegradable polymer device arise over longer follow-up is unknown. Moreover, in-depth, prospective, long-term follow-up data on metallic drug-eluting stents with durable or biodegradable polymers are scarce.METHODS: The COMPARE II trial (Abluminal Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent) was a prospective, randomized, multicenter, all-comers trial in which 2,707 patients were randomly allocated (2:1) to BP-BES or DP-EES. The pre-specified endpoint at 5 years was major adverse cardiac events, a composite of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization.RESULTS: Five-year follow-up was available in 2,657 patients (98%). At 5 years, major adverse cardiac events occurred in 310 patients (17.3%) in the BP-BES group and 142 patients (15.6%) in the DP-EES group (p = 0.26). The rate of the combined safety endpoint all-cause death or myocardial infarction was 15.0% in the BP-BES group versus 14.8% in the DP-EES group (p = 0.90), whereas the efficacy measure target vessel revascularization was 10.6% versus 9.0% (p = 0.18), respectively. Interestingly, definite stent thrombosis rates did not differ between groups (1.5% for BP-BES vs. 0.9% for DP-EES; p = 0.17).CONCLUSIONS: The 5-year analysis comparing biodegradable polymer-coated BES and the durable polymer-coated EES confirms the initial early- and mid-term results regarding similar safety and efficacy outcomes in this all-comers percutaneous coronary intervention population.
AB - OBJECTIVES: This analysis investigates the 5-year outcomes of the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent (BP-BES) and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES) in an all-comers population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.BACKGROUND: Recent 1- and 3-year results from randomized trials have indicated similar safety and efficacy outcomes of BP-BES and DP-EES. Whether benefits of the biodegradable polymer device arise over longer follow-up is unknown. Moreover, in-depth, prospective, long-term follow-up data on metallic drug-eluting stents with durable or biodegradable polymers are scarce.METHODS: The COMPARE II trial (Abluminal Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent) was a prospective, randomized, multicenter, all-comers trial in which 2,707 patients were randomly allocated (2:1) to BP-BES or DP-EES. The pre-specified endpoint at 5 years was major adverse cardiac events, a composite of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization.RESULTS: Five-year follow-up was available in 2,657 patients (98%). At 5 years, major adverse cardiac events occurred in 310 patients (17.3%) in the BP-BES group and 142 patients (15.6%) in the DP-EES group (p = 0.26). The rate of the combined safety endpoint all-cause death or myocardial infarction was 15.0% in the BP-BES group versus 14.8% in the DP-EES group (p = 0.90), whereas the efficacy measure target vessel revascularization was 10.6% versus 9.0% (p = 0.18), respectively. Interestingly, definite stent thrombosis rates did not differ between groups (1.5% for BP-BES vs. 0.9% for DP-EES; p = 0.17).CONCLUSIONS: The 5-year analysis comparing biodegradable polymer-coated BES and the durable polymer-coated EES confirms the initial early- and mid-term results regarding similar safety and efficacy outcomes in this all-comers percutaneous coronary intervention population.
KW - Absorbable Implants
KW - Aged
KW - Cardiovascular Agents/administration & dosage
KW - Coronary Artery Disease/diagnosis
KW - Coronary Thrombosis/etiology
KW - Drug-Eluting Stents
KW - Everolimus/administration & dosage
KW - Female
KW - Humans
KW - Kaplan-Meier Estimate
KW - Male
KW - Middle Aged
KW - Myocardial Infarction/etiology
KW - Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/adverse effects
KW - Polymers/chemistry
KW - Prospective Studies
KW - Prosthesis Design
KW - Risk Factors
KW - Sirolimus/administration & dosage
KW - Time Factors
KW - Treatment Outcome
U2 - 10.1016/j.jcin.2017.02.029
DO - 10.1016/j.jcin.2017.02.029
M3 - Article
C2 - 28579236
SN - 1936-8798
VL - 10
SP - 1215
EP - 1221
JO - JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions
JF - JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions
IS - 12
ER -