Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele-Milan, Italy (M.C., C.A.P., G.G.S.).
Humanitas Clinical and Research Center IRCCS - Rozzano, Milan, Italy (M.C., C.A.P., G.G.S.).
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Feb;12(2):e007311. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.118.007311.
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.
背景 无聚合物药物洗脱支架基于不同的技术,用于药物结合和释放,而不使用聚合物涂层。目前尚不清楚不同的无聚合物药物洗脱支架在安全性和疗效方面是否具有可比性。
方法和结果 在意大利 22 个中心的 2 项多中心注册研究中,共纳入了 2320 例接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的所有患者,对无聚合物 BioFreedom 依维莫司洗脱支架(BES)和无聚合物 Cre8 阿霉素洗脱支架(AES)进行了研究。采用倾向评分匹配法,比较了 1280 例(640 对匹配)接受 BioFreedom BES 或 Cre8 AES 治疗的患者的安全性和疗效终点。主要终点是靶病变失败,包括心源性死亡、靶血管心肌梗死和靶病变血运重建(TLR)。1 年时,BES 组和 AES 组的靶病变失败率分别为 4.0%和 4.2%(风险比[HR]0.98,95%CI,0.57-1.70)。心源性死亡(2.0%对 2.1%;HR,1.03;95%CI,0.47-2.26)、靶血管心肌梗死(0.8%对 0.3%;HR,1.89;95%CI,0.50-6.80)、TLR(1.5%对 2.2%;HR,0.74;95%CI,0.34-1.62)和明确/可能的支架血栓形成(0.9%对 0.8%;HR,1.17;95%CI,0.36-3.81)在接受 BioFreedom BES 和 Cre8 AES 治疗的患者中相似。在糖尿病患者中观察到了不同的治疗效果,表明 AES 在糖尿病患者中具有获益(P 交互=0.003)。
结论 本研究表明,BioFreedom BES 和 Cre8 AES 在接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的所有患者中具有良好且相似的安全性和疗效。需要在大规模随机试验中进一步评估以证实我们的发现。