NUK - logo
E-resources
Peer reviewed Open access
  • Comparison of Durable-Polym...
    Raungaard, Bent, MD, PhD; Christiansen, Evald H., MD, PhD; Bøtker, Hans Erik, MD, DMSci; Hansen, Henrik S., MD, DMSci; Ravkilde, Jan, MD, DMSci; Thuesen, Leif, MD, DMSci; Aarøe, Jens, MD; Villadsen, Anton B., MD; Terkelsen, Christian J., MD, DMSci, PhD; Krusell, Lars R., MD; Maeng, Michael, MD, PhD; Kristensen, Steen D., MD, DMSci; Veien, Karsten T., MD; Hansen, Knud N., MD; Junker, Anders, MD; Madsen, Morten, MSc; Andersen, Søren L., MSc, PhD; Jensen, Svend E., MD, PhD; Jensen, Lisette O., MD, DMSci, PhD

    JACC. Cardiovascular interventions, 02/2017, Volume: 10, Issue: 3
    Journal Article

    Abstract Objectives The authors sought to compare the safety and efficacy of the biocompatible durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent with the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent in unselected coronary patients. Background Biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stents are superior to first-generation durable-polymer drug-eluting stents in long-term randomized all-comer trials. Long-term data comparing them to second-generation durable-polymer drug-eluting stents are lacking. Methods The study was a randomized, multicenter, all-comer, noninferiority trial in patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes and at least 1 coronary artery lesion requiring treatment with a drug-eluting stent. Endpoints included major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of safety (cardiac death and myocardial infarction not clearly attributable to a non-target lesion) and efficacy (target lesion revascularization); the individual endpoints of MACE; all-cause mortality; any myocardial infarction; target vessel revascularization; and definite or probable stent thrombosis at 36 months. Results From March 2011 to August 2012, 2,999 patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either the zotarolimus-eluting (1,502 patients) or the biolimus-eluting (1,497 patients) stent. At 3-year follow-up, MACE occurred in 128 (8.6%) patients assigned to the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent and in 144 (9.6%) assigned to the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent (p = 0.36). Occurrence of cardiac death (2.7% vs. 3.4%), myocardial infarction not clearly attributable to a non-target lesion (2.7% vs. 2.5%), and target lesion revascularization (5.4% vs. 5.5%) did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Definite very late stent thrombosis occurred in 6 (0.4%) patients assigned to the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent and in 10 (0.7%) assigned to the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent (p = 0.33). Conclusions At 3-year follow-up, the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent and the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent were similar in clinical outcome, with no significant difference in safety and efficacy outcomes, including stent thrombosis.