4.5 Article

Comparison of 3 biodegradable polymer and durable polymer-based drug-eluting stents in all-comers (BIO-RESORT): Rationale and study design of the randomized TWENTE III multicenter trial

期刊

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 167, 期 4, 页码 445-451

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2013.11.014

关键词

-

资金

  1. Abbott Vascular
  2. Boston Scientific
  3. Medtronic
  4. MSD
  5. Biotronik

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim To evaluate the safety and efficacy of 2 novel drug-eluting stents (DES) with biodegradable polymer-based coatings versus a durable coating DES. Methods and Results BIO-RESORT is an investigator-initiated, prospective, patient-blinded, randomized multicenter trial in 3540 Dutch all-comers with various clinical syndromes, requiring percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) with DES implantation. Randomization (stratified for diabetes mellitus) is being performed in a 1:1:1 ratio between ORSIRO sirolimuseluting stent with circumferential biodegradable coating, SYNERGY everolimus-eluting stent with abluminal biodegradable coating, and RESOLUTE INTEGRITY zotarolimus-eluting stent with durable coating. The primary endpoint is the incidence of the composite endpoint target vessel failure at 1 year, consisting of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization. Power calculation assumes a target vessel failure rate of 8.5% with a 3.5% non-inferiority margin, giving the study a power of 85% (a level .025 adjusted for multiple testing). The impact of diabetes mellitus on post-PCI outcome will be evaluated. The first patient was enrolled on December 21, 2012. Conclusions BIO-RESORT is a large, prospective, randomized, multicenter trial with three arms, comparing two DES with biodegradable coatings versus a reference DES with a durable coating in 3540 all-comers. The trial will provide novel insights into the clinical outcome of modern DES and will address the impact of known and so far undetected diabetes mellitus on post-PCI outcome.

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

4.5
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