BACKGROUND: New-generation drug-eluting stents offer the potential for enhanced late outcomes in comparison with early generation drug-eluting stents. However, assessment of extended long-term outcomes for these devices is lacking, especially regarding the comparison between new-generation drug-eluting stents with biodegradable or permanent polymers. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of biodegradable polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES; Yukon Choice PC) versus permanent polymer-based everolimus-eluting stents (PP-EES; Xience) versus early generation permanent polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stents (PP-SES; Cypher) at 10-year follow-up. METHODS: Overall, 2603 patients were randomized to treatment with BP-SES (n=1299), PP-EES (n=652), or PP-SES (n=652). The primary end point of this analysis was major adverse cardiac event, the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization. The main secondary end point of interest was definite/probable stent thrombosis. Follow-up at 10 years was available in 83% of the study patients. RESULTS: The 10-year incidence of major adverse cardiac event (BP-SES 47.7% versus PP-EES 46.0% versus PP-SES 54.9%, P=0.003) and mortality (BP-SES 31.8% versus PP-EES 30.3% versus PP-SES 37.2%, P=0.02) was different among the groups. Definite/probable stent thrombosis was not significantly different among the groups (BP-SES 1.8% versus PP-EES 2.5% versus PP-SES 3.7%, P=0.09). Definite stent thrombosis was significantly different among the groups (BP-SES 1.1% versus PP-EES 0.8% versus PP-SES 2.4%, P=0.03). There were no significant differences between BP-SES and PP-EES. CONCLUSIONS: In this unique long-term outcome analysis, BP-SES and PP-EES showed comparable clinical outcomes out to 10 years. PP-SES had higher rates of major adverse cardiac events and definite stent thrombosis. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00598676.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: New-generation drug-eluting stents offer the potential for enhanced late outcomes in comparison with early generation drug-eluting stents. However, assessment of extended long-term outcomes for these devices is lacking, especially regarding the comparison between new-generation drug-eluting stents with biodegradable or permanent polymers. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of biodegradable polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES; Yukon Choice PC) versus permanent polymer-based everolimus-eluting stents (PP-EES; Xience) versus early generation permanent polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stents (PP-SES; Cypher) at 10-year follow-up. METHODS: Overall, 2603 patients were randomized to treatment with BP-SES (n=1299), PP-EES (n=652), or PP-SES (n=652). The primary end point of this analysis was major adverse cardiac event, the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization. The main secondary end point of interest was definite/probable stent thrombosis. Follow-up at 10 years was available in 83% of the study patients. RESULTS: The 10-year incidence of major adverse cardiac event (BP-SES 47.7% versus PP-EES 46.0% versus PP-SES 54.9%, P=0.003) and mortality (BP-SES 31.8% versus PP-EES 30.3% versus PP-SES 37.2%, P=0.02) was different among the groups. Definite/probable stent thrombosis was not significantly different among the groups (BP-SES 1.8% versus PP-EES 2.5% versus PP-SES 3.7%, P=0.09). Definite stent thrombosis was significantly different among the groups (BP-SES 1.1% versus PP-EES 0.8% versus PP-SES 2.4%, P=0.03). There were no significant differences between BP-SES and PP-EES. CONCLUSIONS: In this unique long-term outcome analysis, BP-SES and PP-EES showed comparable clinical outcomes out to 10 years. PP-SES had higher rates of major adverse cardiac events and definite stent thrombosis. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00598676.
Authors: Bryan Chong; Rachel Sze Jen Goh; Gwyneth Kong; Nicholas W S Chew; Poay Huan Loh; Faith Ruo En Sim; Chen Han Ng; Xin Yi Vanessa Teo; Jing Xuan Quek; Oliver Lim; Yip Han Chin; Siew-Pang Chan; Mark Y Chan; Huay-Cheem Tan Journal: J Thromb Thrombolysis Date: 2022-01-04 Impact factor: 2.300
Authors: Daniele Giacoppo; Fernando Alfonso; Bo Xu; Bimmer E P M Claessen; Tom Adriaenssens; Christoph Jensen; María J Pérez-Vizcayno; Do-Yoon Kang; Ralf Degenhardt; Leos Pleva; Jan Baan; Javier Cuesta; Duk-Woo Park; Heribert Schunkert; Roisin Colleran; Pavel Kukla; Pilar Jiménez-Quevedo; Martin Unverdorben; Runlin Gao; Christoph K Naber; Seung-Jung Park; José P S Henriques; Adnan Kastrati; Robert A Byrne Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Laura S M Kerkmeijer; Jaya Chandrasekhar; Deborah N Kalkman; Pier Woudstra; Ian B A Menown; Harry Suryapranata; Peter den Heijer; Andrés Iñiguez; Arnoud W J van 't Hof; Andrejs Erglis; Karin E Arkenbout; Philippe Muller; Karel T Koch; Jan G Tijssen; Marcel A M Beijk; Robbert J de Winter Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 2.692