Nobori-Biolimus-Eluting Stents versus Resolute Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients Undergoing Coronary Intervention: A Propensity Score Matching.
10.3349/ymj.2017.58.2.290
- Author:
Ayman TANTAWY
1
;
Chul Min AHN
;
Dong Ho SHIN
;
Jung Sun KIM
;
Byeong Keuk KIM
;
Young Guk KO
;
Donghoon CHOI
;
Yangsoo JANG
;
Meong Ki HONG
Author Information
1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. MKHONG61@yuhs.ac
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Percutaneous coronary intervention;
drug-eluting stents;
polymers;
biolimus A9;
zotarolimus;
propensity score
- MeSH:
Cohort Studies;
Death;
Drug-Eluting Stents;
Follow-Up Studies;
Humans;
Incidence;
Myocardial Infarction;
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention;
Polymers;
Propensity Score*;
Registries;
Stents*;
Stroke;
Thrombosis
- From:Yonsei Medical Journal
2017;58(2):290-295
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To compare the 1-year outcomes of a durable polymer Zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) versus a biodegradable polymer Biolimus-eluting stent (BES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 2083 patients from 2 different registries, 1125 treated with BES in NOBORI registry and 858 received ZES in CONSTANT registry were included in this study. Clinical outcomes were compared with the use of propensity score matching (PSM). The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) including cardiac death, myocardial infarction, clinically driven target lesion revascularization and stroke. Secondary end points were individual components of MACCEs as well as the incidence of stent thrombosis at 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: After PSM, 699 matched pairs of patients (n=1398) showed no significant difference between BES and ZES in the risk of composite MACCEs at 1 year (2.6% vs. 1.7%; p=0.36). Cardiac death was not statistically different between groups (0.7% vs. 0.4%, p=0.73). Target lesion revascularization rate was also similar between BES and ZES (1.1% vs. 0.7%, p=0.579). Non-Q wave myocardial infarction, as well as target-vessel revascularization rate, was similar between the two groups (0.14% for BES and 0.72% for ZES). Both stent types were excellent with no cases of stent thrombosis and rate of Q wave myocardial infarction reported during the follow-up period. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of patients treated with BES or ZES, the rate of MACCEs at 1 year was low and significantly not different between both groups.
