4.7 Article

Randomized, non-inferiority trial of three limus agent-eluting stents with different polymer coatings: the Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Test Efficacy of 3 Limus-Eluting Stents (ISAR-TEST-4) Trial

Journal

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
Volume 30, Issue 20, Pages 2441-2449

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehp352

Keywords

Biodegradable; Coronary restenosis; Drug-eluting stents; Polymer; Rapamycin

Funding

  1. European Society of Cardiology
  2. Bavarian Research Foundation [BFS-ISAR Aktenzeichen AZ: 504/02, BFS-DES Aktenzeichen AZ: 668/05]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims Although biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stent (DES) platforms have potential to enhance long-term clinical outcomes, data concerning their efficacy are limited to date. We previously demonstrated angiographic antirestenotic efficacy with a microporous, biodegradable polymer DES. In the current study, we hypothesized that at 12 months, its clinical safety and efficacy would be non-inferior to that of permanent polymer DES. Methods and results This prospective, randomized, open-label, active-controlled trial was conducted at two tertiary referral cardiology centres in Munich, Germany. Patients presenting with stable coronary disease or acute coronary syndromes undergoing DES implantation in de novo native-vessel coronary lesions were randomly assigned to treatment with biodegradable polymer DES (rapamycin-eluting; n = 1299) or permanent polymer DES (n = 1304: rapamycin-eluting, Cypher, n = 652; or everolimus-eluting, Xience, n = 652) and underwent clinical follow-up to 1 year. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) related to the target vessel, or revascularization related to the target lesion (TLR). Biodegradable polymer DES was non-inferior to permanent polymer DES concerning the primary endpoint [13.8 vs. 14.4%, respectively, P(non-inferiority) 0.005; relative risk = 0.96 (95% confidence interval, 0.78-1.17), P(superiority) = 0.66]. Biodegradable polymer DES in comparison with permanent polymer DES showed similar rates of cardiac death or MI related to the target vessel (6.3 vs. 6.2%, P = 0.94), TLR (8.8 vs. 9.4%, P = 0.58), and stent thrombosis (definite/probable: 1.0 vs. 1.5%, P = 0.29). Subgroup analysis of the biodegradable polymer DES vs. individual Cypher and Xience stent arms revealed no signal of performance difference. Conclusion A biodegradable polymer rapamycin-eluting stent is non-inferior to permanent polymer-based DES in terms of clinical efficacy over 1 year. These results provide a framework for testing the potential clinical advantage of biodegradable polymer DES over the medium to long term.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available