Long-Term Outcomes of Biodegradable Versus Second-Generation Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stent Implantations for Myocardial Infarction

OBJECTIVES This study sought to compare outcomes between biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stent (BP-DES) and second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stent (DP-DES) implantations for acute myocardial infarction (MI) using a nationwide dataset. BACKGROUND Data regarding outcomes of BP-DES versus second-generation DP-DES are inconclusive. METHODS Among 13,104 patients with acute MI in a nationwide registry who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (November 2011 to December 2015), BP-DES and second-generation DP-DES were implanted in 2,261 (21.7%) and 8,182 patients (78.3%), respectively. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (all-cause death, recurrent MI, or any revascularization) were compared in multivariable Cox regression, propensity score (PS) matched, and underwent PS-adjusted analyses. RESULTS MACE occurred in 1,492 (14.3%) patients during a median 723-day follow-up. MACE were less frequent with BP-DES implantation than with second-generation DP-DES implantation (entire cohort hazard ratio [HR]: 0.845; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.740 to 0.965; PS-matched HR: 0.669; 95% CI: 0.550 to 0.814). Risk of all-cause death (entire cohort HR: 0.831; 95% CI: 0.692 to 0.997; PS-matched HR: 0.752; 95% CI: 0.495 to 0.931), cardiac death (entire cohort HR: 0.685; 95% CI: 0.542 to 0.865; PS-matched HR: 0.613; 95% CI: 0.463 to 0.872), recurrent MI (entire cohort HR: 0.662; 95% CI: 0.466 to 0.941; PS-matched HR: 0.611; 95% CI: 0.427 to 0.898), and heart failure readmission (entire cohort HR: 0.625; 95% CI: 0.447 to 0.875; PS-matched HR: 0.584; 95% CI: 0.385 to 0.887) was less with BP-DES implantation. There were no significant group differences in the incidences of any revascularization, stroke, and definite or probable stent thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS In patients with acute MI who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, BP-DES implantation is associated with improved outcomes compared with second-generation DP-DES implantation. (c) 2020 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.