Safety and Efficacy of Polymer-Free Drug-Eluting Stents.
Aged
Coronary Artery Disease
/ diagnosis
Coronary Stenosis
/ mortality
Drug-Eluting Stents
Female
Humans
Italy
Male
Middle Aged
Observational Studies as Topic
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
/ adverse effects
Prosthesis Design
Registries
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
Sirolimus
/ administration & dosage
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
diabetes mellitus
drug-eluting stents
percutaneous coronary intervention
polymers
thrombosis
Journal
Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions
ISSN: 1941-7632
Titre abrégé: Circ Cardiovasc Interv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101499602
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2019
02 2019
Historique:
entrez:
16
2
2019
pubmed:
16
2
2019
medline:
26
2
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Background Polymer-free drug-eluting stents are based on different technologies for drug binding and release without the use of polymer coatings. It is unknown whether different polymer-free drug-eluting stents are comparable in terms of safety and efficacy profiles. Methods and Results Polymer-free BioFreedom biolimus-eluting stents (BES) and polymer-free Cre8 amphilimus-eluting stents (AES) were investigated in 2 recent multicenter registries including 2320 all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions at 22 Italian centers. Using propensity score matching, safety and efficacy outcomes were compared among 1280 patients (640 matched pairs) treated with BioFreedom BES or Cre8 AES. The primary end point was target lesion failure-a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (TLR). At 1 year, target lesion failure occurred in 4.0% of BES and 4.2% of AES-treated patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0.98, 95% CI, 0.57-1.70). Risks of cardiac death (2.0% versus 2.1%; HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.47-2.26), target vessel myocardial infarction (0.8% versus 0.3%; HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 0.50-6.80), TLR (1.5% versus 2.2%; HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.34-1.62), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (0.9% versus 0.8%; HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.36-3.81) were comparable in patients treated with BioFreedom BES and Cre8 AES. A differential treatment effect by diabetes mellitus status was observed, indicating a benefit of AES in patients with diabetes mellitus ( P interaction=0.003). Conclusions The present study shows that BioFreedom BES and Cre8 AES have favorable and comparable safety and efficacy profiles in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Further evaluation in large-scale, randomized trials are necessary to confirm our findings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30767663
doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.118.007311
doi:
Substances chimiques
umirolimus
U36PGF65JH
Sirolimus
W36ZG6FT64
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e007311Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn