4.6 Article

Abluminal biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in patients with diabetes mellitus 5 years follow-up from the COMPARE II trial

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 290, 期 -, 页码 40-44

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2019.04.054

关键词

Biodegradable polymer; Diabetes mellitus; Drug eluting stents

资金

  1. Terumo

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Drug eluting stents with biodegradable polymers have been developed to address the risk of very late adverse events. Long-term comparison data between the biodegradable polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent (BES; Nobori (R)) and the second-generation durable polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent (EES; XIENCE V (R) or XIENCE PRIME (R) or PROMUS (TM)) in diabetic patients are scarce. Methods: The COMPARE II trial was an investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, randomized, all-comers trial which assigned patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in a 2:1 fashion to either BES or EES. We analyzed the safety and efficacy outcomes in diabetic patients at 5 year follow-up. The primary pre-specified composite endpoint major adverse cardiac event (MACE) was defined as cardiac death, non-fatal target-vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization (CD-TVR). Results: Out of 2707 study patients, 588 were diabetics (21.7%) of whom 391 were treated with BES and 197 with EES. At 5 years follow-up, MACE occurred in 87 patients (22.2%) in the BES group and in 34 patients (17.2%) in the EES group (p = .34). Other safety and efficacy endpoints did not differ between stent groups. Conclusions: At 5 years follow-up, no differences in terms of MACE as well as all analyzed safety and efficacy measures, including stent thrombosis, between the biodegradable polymer-coated BES and the durable polymer-coated EES in diabetic patients were observed. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据