Georgios J Vlachojannis1, Pieter C Smits2, Sjoerd H Hofma3, Mario Togni4, Nicolás Vázquez5, Mariano Valdés6, Vassilis Voudris7, Ton Slagboom8, Jean-Jaques Goy4, Peter den Heijer9, Martin van der Ent1. 1. Department of Cardiology, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Cardiology, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: smitsp@maasstadziekenhuis.nl. 3. Department of Cardiology, Medisch Centrum Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Cardiology, Hôpital Cantonal de Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland. 5. Department of Cardiology, Hospitalario Juan Canalejo, Coruña, Spain. 6. Department of Cardiology, Hospital Clinico Virgen de la Arrixaca, Murcia, Spain. 7. Department of Cardiology, Onassis Cardiac Surgery Centre, Athens, Greece. 8. Department of Cardiology, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 9. Department of Cardiology, Amphia Ziekenhuis, Breda, the Netherlands.
Abstract
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.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: This analysis investigates the 5-year outcomes of the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent (BP-BES) and durable polymereverolimus-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 PolymerEverolimus-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.