Randomized comparison between 2-link cell design biolimus A9-eluting stent and 3-link cell design everolimus-eluting stent in patients with de novo true coronary bifurcation lesions: the BEGIN trial.
Absorbable Implants
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Coronary Artery Disease
/ diagnosis
Coronary Thrombosis
/ etiology
Drug-Eluting Stents
Everolimus
/ administration & dosage
Female
Humans
Japan
Kaplan-Meier Estimate
Male
Middle Aged
Myocardial Infarction
/ etiology
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Polymers
/ chemistry
Prospective Studies
Prosthesis Design
Sirolimus
/ administration & dosage
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Biolimus A9-eluting stent
Coronary bifurcation lesions
Drug-eluting stent
Everolimus-eluting stent
Randomized study
Journal
Heart and vessels
ISSN: 1615-2573
Titre abrégé: Heart Vessels
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 8511258
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2019
Aug 2019
Historique:
received:
30
07
2018
accepted:
01
03
2019
pubmed:
13
3
2019
medline:
16
1
2020
entrez:
13
3
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The appropriate stent platform for treating coronary bifurcation lesions (CBLs) remains controversial. Previous bench tests have demonstrated the superiority of a 2-link cell design to 3-link cell design for creating inter-strut dilation at the side branch ostium. This randomized multicenter prospective BEGIN trial compared the biodegradable polymer-based biolimus A9-eluting stent (2-link BES) with the durable polymer-based cobalt chromium everolimus-eluting stent (3-link EES) in 226 patients with de novo CBLs. Patients with true bifurcations, defined as > 50% stenosis in the main vessel and side branch (SB) and an SB diameter > 2.25 mm, were enrolled. Guide wire re-crossing to the distal cell (near the carina) in the jailed SB and final kissing inflation were recommended. The SB angiographic endpoint was < 50% stenosis diameter. Left-main CBLs (13.5% vs. 13.0%) and 2-stent technique (30.6% vs. 22.6%) rates were similar. The primary endpoints (minimum lumen diameter at the SB ostium measured at an independent core laboratory at the 8-month follow-up) were comparable (1.64 ± 0.50 mm vs. 1.63 ± 0.51 mm, p = 0.976). There was no significant difference in composite outcomes of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vascular revascularization at 12 months (7.4% vs. 8.0%, p = 0.894). Two-link BES and 3-link EES showed similar 8-month angiographic and 1-year clinical outcomes for true CBLs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30859377
doi: 10.1007/s00380-019-01368-3
pii: 10.1007/s00380-019-01368-3
doi:
Substances chimiques
Polymers
0
Everolimus
9HW64Q8G6G
umirolimus
U36PGF65JH
Sirolimus
W36ZG6FT64
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1297-1308Références
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005 Aug 16;46(4):599-605
pubmed: 16098422
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005 Aug 16;46(4):633-7
pubmed: 16098427
Circulation. 2006 Oct 31;114(18):1955-61
pubmed: 17060387
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008 Feb 1;71(2):175-83
pubmed: 17985377
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2010 Apr;3(2):120-6
pubmed: 20197512
Circulation. 2011 Jan 4;123(1):79-86
pubmed: 21173348
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011 Mar;4(3):327-35
pubmed: 21435612
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012 Dec 1;80(7):1165-70
pubmed: 22511299
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Jul 16;62(3):181-190
pubmed: 23684673
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 May 1;83(6):889-95
pubmed: 23804318
EuroIntervention. 2014 Dec;10(8):934-41
pubmed: 24531354
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Apr;7(2):168-79
pubmed: 24550439
Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2013 Aug;66(8):636-43
pubmed: 24776332
Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2014 Oct;67(10):797-803
pubmed: 25262125
Am Heart J. 2015 Jan;169(1):69-77
pubmed: 25497250
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 May;87(6):1092-100
pubmed: 26268482
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Aug 24;8(10):1297-307
pubmed: 26315732
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Aug 24;8(10):1318-31
pubmed: 26315734
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015 Oct;8(10):null
pubmed: 26446596
J Interv Cardiol. 2016 Apr;29(2):188-96
pubmed: 26822855
Heart Vessels. 2016 Dec;31(12):1895-1903
pubmed: 26879743
Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2017 Jan;32(1):12-17
pubmed: 26968169
Int J Cardiol. 2018 Jan 1;250:270-274
pubmed: 29030141
EuroIntervention. 2018 Feb 02;13(15):e1785-e1793
pubmed: 29131806