OBJECTIVES: To compare biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting (BES) with abluminal drug elution and durable polymer everolimus-eluting (EES) stents in the treatment of bifurcation lesions. BACKGROUND: The persistence of a polymer in drug-eluting stents (DES) following drug elution has been viewed as a possible culprit for restenosis. DES with biodegradable polymer may thus be associated with improved clinical outcomes, especially in high-risk lesions such as those at bifurcation sites. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of consecutive de novo bifurcation lesions treated with EES between October 2006 and October 2011 and BES between February 2008 and March 2012. Study endpoints included major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), including peri-procedural MI, and target vessel revascularization (TVR) as well as target lesion revascularization (TLR) separately. RESULTS: We analyzed 236 bifurcation lesions treated with either BES (79 lesions in 69 patients) or EES (157 lesions in 154 patients). Patient and procedural characteristics were broadly similar between the two groups. Estimated MACE and TVR rates at 2-year follow-up were similar between the BES and EES groups (MACE = 13.6 ± 4.6% vs. 14.6 ± 3.2% (P = 0.871); TVR = 6.9 ± 3.5% vs. 8.0 ± 2.7% (P = 0.889). No significant differences were noted between the two groups following propensity-score matched analysis. There was no probable or definite stent thrombosis. CONCLUSION: BES use in the treatment of bifurcation lesions appears to be associated with good clinical outcomes, comparable to those seen with EES, at long-term follow-up. These results are hypothesis-generating and need to be validated with larger studies.
OBJECTIVES: To compare biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting (BES) with abluminal drug elution and durable polymereverolimus-eluting (EES) stents in the treatment of bifurcation lesions. BACKGROUND: The persistence of a polymer in drug-eluting stents (DES) following drug elution has been viewed as a possible culprit for restenosis. DES with biodegradable polymer may thus be associated with improved clinical outcomes, especially in high-risk lesions such as those at bifurcation sites. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of consecutive de novo bifurcation lesions treated with EES between October 2006 and October 2011 and BES between February 2008 and March 2012. Study endpoints included major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), including peri-procedural MI, and target vessel revascularization (TVR) as well as target lesion revascularization (TLR) separately. RESULTS: We analyzed 236 bifurcation lesions treated with either BES (79 lesions in 69 patients) or EES (157 lesions in 154 patients). Patient and procedural characteristics were broadly similar between the two groups. Estimated MACE and TVR rates at 2-year follow-up were similar between the BES and EES groups (MACE = 13.6 ± 4.6% vs. 14.6 ± 3.2% (P = 0.871); TVR = 6.9 ± 3.5% vs. 8.0 ± 2.7% (P = 0.889). No significant differences were noted between the two groups following propensity-score matched analysis. There was no probable or definite stent thrombosis. CONCLUSION:BES use in the treatment of bifurcation lesions appears to be associated with good clinical outcomes, comparable to those seen with EES, at long-term follow-up. These results are hypothesis-generating and need to be validated with larger studies.