Two-year clinical outcomes of zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting durable-polymer-coated stents versus biolimus-eluting biodegradable-polymer-coated stent in patients with acute myocardial infarction with dyslipidemia after percutaneous coronary intervention: data from the KAMIR

Yong Hoon Kim, Ae Young Her, Myung Ho Jeong, Byeong Keuk Kim, Sung Jin Hong, Dong Ho Shin, Jung Sun Kim, Young Guk Ko, Donghoon Choi, Myeong Ki Hong, Yangsoo Jang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

There are limited data comparing the clinical outcomes among new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients with dyslipidemia after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We thought to investigate 2-year clinical outcomes among durable-polymer (DP)-coated stents [zotarolimus eluting (ZES) and everolimus eluting (EES)] and biodegradable-polymer (BP)-coated biolimus-eluting stent (BES) in dyslipidemic AMI patients after PCI. Finally, a total 2403 enrolled patients were divided into ZES (n = 953), EES (n = 1145) or BES (n = 305) group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as total death (TD), cardiac death (CD), myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR) and non-TVR. The secondary endpoint was the incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST). The 2-year adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of MACE for ZES vs. EES [HR, 1.066; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.752–1.511; p = 0.720], ZES vs. BES (HR 0.933; 95% CI 0.565–1.541; p = 0.786), EES vs. BES (HR 1.876; 95% CI 0.535–1.436; p = 0.600) and ZES/EES vs. BES (HR 0.929; 95% CI 0.591–1.462; p = 0.751) was similar. The cumulative incidences of ST were comparable (ZES vs. EES vs. BES = 1.1% vs. 0.9% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.675) and adjusted HR was not different. In addition, the 2-year adjusted HR of TD, CD, MI, TLR, TVR, and non-TVR was similar. The AMI patients with dyslipidemia receiving ZES, EES, or BES after PCI showed comparable safety and efficacy during 2-year follow-up periods. Therefore, DP-DES or BP-DES is equally acceptable in dyslipidemic AMI patients during PCI.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)237-250
Number of pages14
JournalHeart and Vessels
Volume34
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019 Feb 15

Fingerprint

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Dyslipidemias
Stents
Polymers
Myocardial Infarction
Drug-Eluting Stents
Confidence Intervals
Thrombosis
Everolimus
zotarolimus
Incidence
Safety

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

@article{b9b223af0b79453cbb650934f9f0d335,
title = "Two-year clinical outcomes of zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting durable-polymer-coated stents versus biolimus-eluting biodegradable-polymer-coated stent in patients with acute myocardial infarction with dyslipidemia after percutaneous coronary intervention: data from the KAMIR",
abstract = "There are limited data comparing the clinical outcomes among new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients with dyslipidemia after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We thought to investigate 2-year clinical outcomes among durable-polymer (DP)-coated stents [zotarolimus eluting (ZES) and everolimus eluting (EES)] and biodegradable-polymer (BP)-coated biolimus-eluting stent (BES) in dyslipidemic AMI patients after PCI. Finally, a total 2403 enrolled patients were divided into ZES (n = 953), EES (n = 1145) or BES (n = 305) group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as total death (TD), cardiac death (CD), myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR) and non-TVR. The secondary endpoint was the incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST). The 2-year adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of MACE for ZES vs. EES [HR, 1.066; 95{\%} confidence interval (CI) 0.752–1.511; p = 0.720], ZES vs. BES (HR 0.933; 95{\%} CI 0.565–1.541; p = 0.786), EES vs. BES (HR 1.876; 95{\%} CI 0.535–1.436; p = 0.600) and ZES/EES vs. BES (HR 0.929; 95{\%} CI 0.591–1.462; p = 0.751) was similar. The cumulative incidences of ST were comparable (ZES vs. EES vs. BES = 1.1{\%} vs. 0.9{\%} vs. 1.1{\%}, p = 0.675) and adjusted HR was not different. In addition, the 2-year adjusted HR of TD, CD, MI, TLR, TVR, and non-TVR was similar. The AMI patients with dyslipidemia receiving ZES, EES, or BES after PCI showed comparable safety and efficacy during 2-year follow-up periods. Therefore, DP-DES or BP-DES is equally acceptable in dyslipidemic AMI patients during PCI.",
author = "Kim, {Yong Hoon} and Her, {Ae Young} and Jeong, {Myung Ho} and Kim, {Byeong Keuk} and Hong, {Sung Jin} and Shin, {Dong Ho} and Kim, {Jung Sun} and Ko, {Young Guk} and Donghoon Choi and Hong, {Myeong Ki} and Yangsoo Jang",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1007/s00380-018-1251-0",
language = "English",
volume = "34",
pages = "237--250",
journal = "Heart and Vessels",
issn = "0910-8327",
publisher = "Springer Japan",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Two-year clinical outcomes of zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting durable-polymer-coated stents versus biolimus-eluting biodegradable-polymer-coated stent in patients with acute myocardial infarction with dyslipidemia after percutaneous coronary intervention

T2 - data from the KAMIR

AU - Kim, Yong Hoon

AU - Her, Ae Young

AU - Jeong, Myung Ho

AU - Kim, Byeong Keuk

AU - Hong, Sung Jin

AU - Shin, Dong Ho

AU - Kim, Jung Sun

AU - Ko, Young Guk

AU - Choi, Donghoon

AU - Hong, Myeong Ki

AU - Jang, Yangsoo

PY - 2019/2/15

Y1 - 2019/2/15

N2 - There are limited data comparing the clinical outcomes among new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients with dyslipidemia after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We thought to investigate 2-year clinical outcomes among durable-polymer (DP)-coated stents [zotarolimus eluting (ZES) and everolimus eluting (EES)] and biodegradable-polymer (BP)-coated biolimus-eluting stent (BES) in dyslipidemic AMI patients after PCI. Finally, a total 2403 enrolled patients were divided into ZES (n = 953), EES (n = 1145) or BES (n = 305) group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as total death (TD), cardiac death (CD), myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR) and non-TVR. The secondary endpoint was the incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST). The 2-year adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of MACE for ZES vs. EES [HR, 1.066; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.752–1.511; p = 0.720], ZES vs. BES (HR 0.933; 95% CI 0.565–1.541; p = 0.786), EES vs. BES (HR 1.876; 95% CI 0.535–1.436; p = 0.600) and ZES/EES vs. BES (HR 0.929; 95% CI 0.591–1.462; p = 0.751) was similar. The cumulative incidences of ST were comparable (ZES vs. EES vs. BES = 1.1% vs. 0.9% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.675) and adjusted HR was not different. In addition, the 2-year adjusted HR of TD, CD, MI, TLR, TVR, and non-TVR was similar. The AMI patients with dyslipidemia receiving ZES, EES, or BES after PCI showed comparable safety and efficacy during 2-year follow-up periods. Therefore, DP-DES or BP-DES is equally acceptable in dyslipidemic AMI patients during PCI.

AB - There are limited data comparing the clinical outcomes among new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients with dyslipidemia after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We thought to investigate 2-year clinical outcomes among durable-polymer (DP)-coated stents [zotarolimus eluting (ZES) and everolimus eluting (EES)] and biodegradable-polymer (BP)-coated biolimus-eluting stent (BES) in dyslipidemic AMI patients after PCI. Finally, a total 2403 enrolled patients were divided into ZES (n = 953), EES (n = 1145) or BES (n = 305) group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as total death (TD), cardiac death (CD), myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR) and non-TVR. The secondary endpoint was the incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST). The 2-year adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of MACE for ZES vs. EES [HR, 1.066; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.752–1.511; p = 0.720], ZES vs. BES (HR 0.933; 95% CI 0.565–1.541; p = 0.786), EES vs. BES (HR 1.876; 95% CI 0.535–1.436; p = 0.600) and ZES/EES vs. BES (HR 0.929; 95% CI 0.591–1.462; p = 0.751) was similar. The cumulative incidences of ST were comparable (ZES vs. EES vs. BES = 1.1% vs. 0.9% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.675) and adjusted HR was not different. In addition, the 2-year adjusted HR of TD, CD, MI, TLR, TVR, and non-TVR was similar. The AMI patients with dyslipidemia receiving ZES, EES, or BES after PCI showed comparable safety and efficacy during 2-year follow-up periods. Therefore, DP-DES or BP-DES is equally acceptable in dyslipidemic AMI patients during PCI.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85052806883&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85052806883&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00380-018-1251-0

DO - 10.1007/s00380-018-1251-0

M3 - Article

C2 - 30167772

AN - SCOPUS:85052806883

VL - 34

SP - 237

EP - 250

JO - Heart and Vessels

JF - Heart and Vessels

SN - 0910-8327

IS - 2

ER -