CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Other Relevant Articles

Abstract

Recommended Article

Hs-cTroponins for the prediction of recurrent cardiovascular events in patients with established CHD - A comparative analysis from the KAROLA study Triage Considerations for Patients Referred for Structural Heart Disease Intervention During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic: An ACC /SCAI Consensus Statement Impact of lesion complexity on peri-procedural adverse events and the benefit of potent intravenous platelet adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibition after percutaneous coronary intervention: core laboratory analysis from 10 854 patients from the CHAMPION PHOENIX trial A Combination of Allogeneic Stem Cells Promotes Cardiac Regeneration Timing and Causes of Unplanned Readmissions After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the Nationwide Readmission Database Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Interventional Cardiology: From Decision-Making Aid to Advanced Interventional Procedure Assistance How Low to Go With Glucose, Cholesterol, and Blood Pressure in Primary Prevention of CVD Interleukin-1 Beta as a Target for Atherosclerosis Therapy: Biological Basis of CANTOS and Beyond

Clinical TrialVolume 13, Issue 1, January 2020

JOURNAL:JACC Cardiovasc Interv. Article Link

Randomized Comparison of Ridaforolimus-Eluting and Zotarolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents 2-Year Clinical Outcomes: From the BIONICS and NIREUS Trials

M Konigstein, PC Smits, MP Love et al. Keywords: PCI; DES; ridaforolimus vs. zotarolimus

ABSTRACT


OBJECTIVES - This study sought to determine clinical outcomes between treatment groups over long-term follow-up.

 

BACKGROUND - The safety and efficacy of a ridaforolimus-eluting stent (RES) was evaluated in the BIONICS (BioNIR Ridaforolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent System in Coronary Stenosis) and NIREUS (BioNIR Ridaforolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [BioNIR] European Angiography Study) trials, demonstrating noninferiority of RES in comparison with a zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) regarding 1-year target lesion failure (TLF) and 6-month angiographic late lumen loss, respectively.

 

METHODS - Patient-level data from the BIONICS (N = 1,919) and NIREUS (N = 302) randomized trials were pooled, and outcomes in patients implanted with RES and ZES compared. Broad inclusion criteria allowed enrollment of patients with acute coronary syndromes and complex lesions. The primary endpoint was the 2-year rate of TLF or clinically driven target lesion revascularization.

 

RESULTS - A total of 2,221 patients (age 63.2 ± 10.3 years; 79.7% men) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with RES (n = 1,159) or ZES (n = 1,062) were included. Clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between groups. At 2 years, the primary endpoint of TLF was similar among patients implanted with RES and ZES (7.0% vs. 7.2%; p = 0.94). Rates of target lesion revascularization (4.8% RES vs. 4.1% ZES; p = 0.41) and target vesselrelated myocardial infarction (3.1% RES vs. 3.8% ZES; p = 0.52) did not differ between groups. The overall rate of stent thrombosis was also similar (0.5% RES vs. 0.9% ZES; p = 0.39).

 

CONCLUSIONS -  In a pooled analysis of 2 randomized trials, 2-year clinical outcomes were similar between patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with RES and ZES. These results support the long-term safety and efficacy of RES for the treatment of a broad population of patients with coronary artery disease.