Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials Comparing Biodegradable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stent to Second-Generation Durable Polymer Drug- Eluting Stents

OBJECTIVES The authors sought to perform a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the safety and efficacy of biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) to second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES). BACKGROUND Prior meta-analyses have established the superiority of BP-DES over bare-metal stents and first-generation DP-DES; however, their advantage compared with second-generation DP-DES remains controversial. METHODS The authors searched PubMed and Scopus databases for RCTs comparing BP-DES to the second-generation DP-DES. Outcomes included target vessel revascularization (TVR) as efficacy outcome and cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST) as safety outcomes. In addition, we performed landmark analysis for endpoints beyond 1 year of follow-up and a subgroup analysis based on the stent characteristics. RESULTS The authors included 16 RCTs comprising 19,886 patients in the meta-analysis. At the longest available follow-up (mean duration 26 months), we observed no significant differences in TVR (p = 0.62), cardiac death (p = 0.46), MI (p = 0.98), or ST (risk ratio: 0.83, 95% confidence interval: 0.64 to 1.09; p = 0.19). Our landmark analysis showed that BP-DES were not associated with a reduction in the risk of very late ST (risk ratio: 0.87, 95% confidence interval: 0.49 to 1.53; p = 0.62). Similar outcomes were seen regardless of the eluting drug (biolimus vs. sirolimus), the stent platform (stainless steel vs. alloy), the kinetics of polymer degradation or drug release (< 6 months vs. > 6 months), the strut thickness of the BP-DES (thin < 100 mm vs. thick > 100 mm), or the DAPT duration (>= 6 months vs. >= 12 months). CONCLUSIONS BP-DES have similar safety and efficacy profiles to second-generation DP-DES. (J Am Coll Cardiol Intv(C) 2017; 10: 462-73) Published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation.