Comparison of the safety and efficacy of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents: Propensity score-matched analysis

Ji Hyun Lee, Junwon Lee, Youngjin Youn, Minsoo Ahn, Sung Gyun Ahn, Jang Young Kim, Byungsu Yoo, Seunghwan Lee, Eunhee Choi, Junghan Yoon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives We investigated and compared the clinical outcomes between biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BES) and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in a single-center prospective registry. Background There is limited data regarding the safety and efficacy of the biodegradable BES compared to second-generation drug-eluting stents. Methods From January 2010 to April 2012, a total of 1,279 patients were treated with BES (n=647) or EES (n=632) in a single center. We included 1,231 patients (BES=625, EES=606) after excluding 48 patients (BES=22, EES=26) with acute myocardial infarction accompanied by cardiogenic shock. The 1-year incidences of target lesion failure (TLF), patient-oriented composite outcomes (POCO), and stent thrombosis (ST) after the index procedure were compared in propensity score-matched analyses. Results Propensity score matching yielded 406 well-balanced pairs (EES=406, BES-B=406). In the propensity-matched population, the 1-year incidence of TLF (BES=3.0% vs. EES=2.5%, P=0.666) and POCO (BES=5.4% vs. EES=6.4%, P=0.552) were similar between the 2 groups. In addition, the incidence of definite or probable ST was also similar (BES=0.74% vs. EES=0.74%, P=1.000). In subgroup analysis, the number of patients who reached the primary end-point did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Conclusion In a single-center registry with unrestricted use of EES and BES-B, these stents showed comparable efficacy and safety in terms of TLF, POCO, and ST at 1-year follow-up. (J Interven Cardiol 2014;27:399-407)

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)399-407
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Interventional Cardiology
Volume27
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014 Jan 1

Fingerprint

Propensity Score
Stents
Polymers
Safety
Everolimus
Thrombosis
Registries
Incidence

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

@article{a8efb4eb7c93434cb36c6d3a8a57ca48,
title = "Comparison of the safety and efficacy of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents: Propensity score-matched analysis",
abstract = "Objectives We investigated and compared the clinical outcomes between biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BES) and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in a single-center prospective registry. Background There is limited data regarding the safety and efficacy of the biodegradable BES compared to second-generation drug-eluting stents. Methods From January 2010 to April 2012, a total of 1,279 patients were treated with BES (n=647) or EES (n=632) in a single center. We included 1,231 patients (BES=625, EES=606) after excluding 48 patients (BES=22, EES=26) with acute myocardial infarction accompanied by cardiogenic shock. The 1-year incidences of target lesion failure (TLF), patient-oriented composite outcomes (POCO), and stent thrombosis (ST) after the index procedure were compared in propensity score-matched analyses. Results Propensity score matching yielded 406 well-balanced pairs (EES=406, BES-B=406). In the propensity-matched population, the 1-year incidence of TLF (BES=3.0{\%} vs. EES=2.5{\%}, P=0.666) and POCO (BES=5.4{\%} vs. EES=6.4{\%}, P=0.552) were similar between the 2 groups. In addition, the incidence of definite or probable ST was also similar (BES=0.74{\%} vs. EES=0.74{\%}, P=1.000). In subgroup analysis, the number of patients who reached the primary end-point did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Conclusion In a single-center registry with unrestricted use of EES and BES-B, these stents showed comparable efficacy and safety in terms of TLF, POCO, and ST at 1-year follow-up. (J Interven Cardiol 2014;27:399-407)",
author = "Lee, {Ji Hyun} and Junwon Lee and Youngjin Youn and Minsoo Ahn and Ahn, {Sung Gyun} and Kim, {Jang Young} and Byungsu Yoo and Seunghwan Lee and Eunhee Choi and Junghan Yoon",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/joic.12140",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "399--407",
journal = "Journal of Interventional Cardiology",
issn = "0896-4327",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of the safety and efficacy of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents

T2 - Propensity score-matched analysis

AU - Lee, Ji Hyun

AU - Lee, Junwon

AU - Youn, Youngjin

AU - Ahn, Minsoo

AU - Ahn, Sung Gyun

AU - Kim, Jang Young

AU - Yoo, Byungsu

AU - Lee, Seunghwan

AU - Choi, Eunhee

AU - Yoon, Junghan

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - Objectives We investigated and compared the clinical outcomes between biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BES) and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in a single-center prospective registry. Background There is limited data regarding the safety and efficacy of the biodegradable BES compared to second-generation drug-eluting stents. Methods From January 2010 to April 2012, a total of 1,279 patients were treated with BES (n=647) or EES (n=632) in a single center. We included 1,231 patients (BES=625, EES=606) after excluding 48 patients (BES=22, EES=26) with acute myocardial infarction accompanied by cardiogenic shock. The 1-year incidences of target lesion failure (TLF), patient-oriented composite outcomes (POCO), and stent thrombosis (ST) after the index procedure were compared in propensity score-matched analyses. Results Propensity score matching yielded 406 well-balanced pairs (EES=406, BES-B=406). In the propensity-matched population, the 1-year incidence of TLF (BES=3.0% vs. EES=2.5%, P=0.666) and POCO (BES=5.4% vs. EES=6.4%, P=0.552) were similar between the 2 groups. In addition, the incidence of definite or probable ST was also similar (BES=0.74% vs. EES=0.74%, P=1.000). In subgroup analysis, the number of patients who reached the primary end-point did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Conclusion In a single-center registry with unrestricted use of EES and BES-B, these stents showed comparable efficacy and safety in terms of TLF, POCO, and ST at 1-year follow-up. (J Interven Cardiol 2014;27:399-407)

AB - Objectives We investigated and compared the clinical outcomes between biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BES) and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in a single-center prospective registry. Background There is limited data regarding the safety and efficacy of the biodegradable BES compared to second-generation drug-eluting stents. Methods From January 2010 to April 2012, a total of 1,279 patients were treated with BES (n=647) or EES (n=632) in a single center. We included 1,231 patients (BES=625, EES=606) after excluding 48 patients (BES=22, EES=26) with acute myocardial infarction accompanied by cardiogenic shock. The 1-year incidences of target lesion failure (TLF), patient-oriented composite outcomes (POCO), and stent thrombosis (ST) after the index procedure were compared in propensity score-matched analyses. Results Propensity score matching yielded 406 well-balanced pairs (EES=406, BES-B=406). In the propensity-matched population, the 1-year incidence of TLF (BES=3.0% vs. EES=2.5%, P=0.666) and POCO (BES=5.4% vs. EES=6.4%, P=0.552) were similar between the 2 groups. In addition, the incidence of definite or probable ST was also similar (BES=0.74% vs. EES=0.74%, P=1.000). In subgroup analysis, the number of patients who reached the primary end-point did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Conclusion In a single-center registry with unrestricted use of EES and BES-B, these stents showed comparable efficacy and safety in terms of TLF, POCO, and ST at 1-year follow-up. (J Interven Cardiol 2014;27:399-407)

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84904993161&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84904993161&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/joic.12140

DO - 10.1111/joic.12140

M3 - Article

C2 - 25052960

AN - SCOPUS:84904993161

VL - 27

SP - 399

EP - 407

JO - Journal of Interventional Cardiology

JF - Journal of Interventional Cardiology

SN - 0896-4327

IS - 4

ER -