Department of Cardiology, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Department of Cardiology, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Jun 26;10(12):1215-1221. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2017.02.029. Epub 2017 May 31.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
本分析研究了在接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的所有患者中,生物可降解聚合物雷帕霉素洗脱支架(BP-BES)和耐用聚合物依维莫司洗脱支架(DP-EES)的 5 年结果。
随机试验的最近 1 年和 3 年结果表明,BP-BES 和 DP-EES 的安全性和疗效结果相似。在更长的随访时间内,生物可降解聚合物装置是否具有优势尚不清楚。此外,关于耐用或生物可降解聚合物的金属药物洗脱支架的深入、前瞻性、长期随访数据很少。
COMPARE II 试验(生物可降解聚合物雷帕霉素洗脱支架与耐用聚合物依维莫司洗脱支架的腔内对比)是一项前瞻性、随机、多中心、所有患者的试验,其中 2707 例患者被随机分配(2:1)至 BP-BES 或 DP-EES 组。5 年时的主要终点是心脏不良事件,包括心脏死亡、非致死性心肌梗死或靶血管血运重建的复合终点。
2657 例患者(98%)获得了 5 年随访。5 年时,BP-BES 组有 310 例(17.3%)患者发生主要不良心脏事件,DP-EES 组有 142 例(15.6%)患者发生主要不良心脏事件(p=0.26)。BP-BES 组全因死亡或心肌梗死的联合安全性终点发生率为 15.0%,DP-EES 组为 14.8%(p=0.90),而疗效指标靶血管血运重建发生率分别为 10.6%和 9.0%(p=0.18)。有趣的是,两组之间的明确支架血栓形成率没有差异(BP-BES 为 1.5%,DP-EES 为 0.9%;p=0.17)。
比较生物可降解聚合物涂层 BES 和耐用聚合物涂层 EES 的 5 年分析结果证实了在所有接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的患者中,早期和中期安全性和疗效结果相似。