Ultrathin Bioresorbable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents versus Thin Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents: BIOFLOW V 2-Year Results.
Ultrathin Bioresorbable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents versus Thin Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents: BIOFLOW V 2-Year Results.
- 2018
Available online from MWHC library: 1995 - present, Available in print through MWHC library:1999-2007
BACKGROUND: Coronary drug-eluting stent development has introduced new metal alloys, changes in stent architecture and bioresorbable polymers. Whether these advancements improve long-term clinical safety and efficacy has been inconsistent in prior studies. CONCLUSIONS: In a large randomized trial, significant differences in both TLF and target vessel-related MI persisted through 2 years favoring treatment with BP SES over DP EES. Significantly lower cumulative TLR and late/very late stent thrombosis were also observed with BP SES. Copyright (c) 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc. METHODS: BIOFLOW V was an international randomized trial comparing coronary revascularization with BP SES and DP EES regarding the primary endpoint of 12-month target lesion failure (TLF). Analysis of pre-specified 2-year clinical outcomes was performed. OBJECTIVES: To compare late-term clinical outcomes among patients treated with an ultrathin strut (60 mum) bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP SES) and a thin strut (81 mum) durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP EES) in a large randomized trial. RESULTS: Among 1,334 patients randomized to treatment with BP SES (884 patients) or DP EES (450 patients), the two-year TLF rate was 7.5% for BP SES and 11.9% for DP EES (-4.33% treatment difference, 95% CI -8.16% to -0.91%, P=0.015), driven by differences in target vessel myocardial infarction (MI; 5.3% versus 9.5%, P=0.01) and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR; 2.6% versus 4.9%, P=0.04). Rates of cardiac death or MI were 7.0% versus 10.4% for BP SES and DP EES, respectively (P=0.047). Late/very late definite stent thrombosis was statistically lower for BP SES compared with DP EES (0.1% versus 1.0%, P=0.045).
English
0735-1097
IN PROCESS -- NOT YET INDEXED
MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute
Journal Article
Available online from MWHC library: 1995 - present, Available in print through MWHC library:1999-2007
BACKGROUND: Coronary drug-eluting stent development has introduced new metal alloys, changes in stent architecture and bioresorbable polymers. Whether these advancements improve long-term clinical safety and efficacy has been inconsistent in prior studies. CONCLUSIONS: In a large randomized trial, significant differences in both TLF and target vessel-related MI persisted through 2 years favoring treatment with BP SES over DP EES. Significantly lower cumulative TLR and late/very late stent thrombosis were also observed with BP SES. Copyright (c) 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc. METHODS: BIOFLOW V was an international randomized trial comparing coronary revascularization with BP SES and DP EES regarding the primary endpoint of 12-month target lesion failure (TLF). Analysis of pre-specified 2-year clinical outcomes was performed. OBJECTIVES: To compare late-term clinical outcomes among patients treated with an ultrathin strut (60 mum) bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP SES) and a thin strut (81 mum) durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP EES) in a large randomized trial. RESULTS: Among 1,334 patients randomized to treatment with BP SES (884 patients) or DP EES (450 patients), the two-year TLF rate was 7.5% for BP SES and 11.9% for DP EES (-4.33% treatment difference, 95% CI -8.16% to -0.91%, P=0.015), driven by differences in target vessel myocardial infarction (MI; 5.3% versus 9.5%, P=0.01) and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR; 2.6% versus 4.9%, P=0.04). Rates of cardiac death or MI were 7.0% versus 10.4% for BP SES and DP EES, respectively (P=0.047). Late/very late definite stent thrombosis was statistically lower for BP SES compared with DP EES (0.1% versus 1.0%, P=0.045).
English
0735-1097
IN PROCESS -- NOT YET INDEXED
MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute
Journal Article