These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: Final 5-Year Report From the COMPARE II Trial (Abluminal Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent).
    Author: Vlachojannis GJ, Smits PC, Hofma SH, Togni M, Vázquez N, Valdés M, Voudris V, Slagboom T, Goy JJ, den Heijer P, van der Ent M.
    Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv; 2017 Jun 26; 10(12):1215-1221. PubMed ID: 28579236.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: This analysis investigates the 5-year outcomes of the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent (BP-BES) and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES) in an all-comers population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND: Recent 1- and 3-year results from randomized trials have indicated similar safety and efficacy outcomes of BP-BES and DP-EES. Whether benefits of the biodegradable polymer device arise over longer follow-up is unknown. Moreover, in-depth, prospective, long-term follow-up data on metallic drug-eluting stents with durable or biodegradable polymers are scarce. METHODS: The COMPARE II trial (Abluminal Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent) was a prospective, randomized, multicenter, all-comers trial in which 2,707 patients were randomly allocated (2:1) to BP-BES or DP-EES. The pre-specified endpoint at 5 years was major adverse cardiac events, a composite of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: Five-year follow-up was available in 2,657 patients (98%). At 5 years, major adverse cardiac events occurred in 310 patients (17.3%) in the BP-BES group and 142 patients (15.6%) in the DP-EES group (p = 0.26). The rate of the combined safety endpoint all-cause death or myocardial infarction was 15.0% in the BP-BES group versus 14.8% in the DP-EES group (p = 0.90), whereas the efficacy measure target vessel revascularization was 10.6% versus 9.0% (p = 0.18), respectively. Interestingly, definite stent thrombosis rates did not differ between groups (1.5% for BP-BES vs. 0.9% for DP-EES; p = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: The 5-year analysis comparing biodegradable polymer-coated BES and the durable polymer-coated EES confirms the initial early- and mid-term results regarding similar safety and efficacy outcomes in this all-comers percutaneous coronary intervention population.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]