Yonsei Med J.  2017 Mar;58(2):290-295. 10.3349/ymj.2017.58.2.290.

Nobori-Biolimus-Eluting Stents versus Resolute Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients Undergoing Coronary Intervention: A Propensity Score Matching

• Tantawy A
• Ahn CM
• Shin DH
• Kim JS
• Kim BK
• Ko YG
• Choi D
• Jang Y
• Hong MK

• KMID: 2427116
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2017.58.2.290

Abstract

PURPOSE
To compare the 1-year outcomes of a durable polymer Zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) versus a biodegradable polymer Biolimus-eluting stent (BES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A total of 2083 patients from 2 different registries, 1125 treated with BES in NOBORI registry and 858 received ZES in CONSTANT registry were included in this study. Clinical outcomes were compared with the use of propensity score matching (PSM). The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) including cardiac death, myocardial infarction, clinically driven target lesion revascularization and stroke. Secondary end points were individual components of MACCEs as well as the incidence of stent thrombosis at 1-year follow-up.
RESULTS
After PSM, 699 matched pairs of patients (n=1398) showed no significant difference between BES and ZES in the risk of composite MACCEs at 1 year (2.6% vs. 1.7%; p=0.36). Cardiac death was not statistically different between groups (0.7% vs. 0.4%, p=0.73). Target lesion revascularization rate was also similar between BES and ZES (1.1% vs. 0.7%, p=0.579). Non-Q wave myocardial infarction, as well as target-vessel revascularization rate, was similar between the two groups (0.14% for BES and 0.72% for ZES). Both stent types were excellent with no cases of stent thrombosis and rate of Q wave myocardial infarction reported during the follow-up period.
CONCLUSION
In this cohort of patients treated with BES or ZES, the rate of MACCEs at 1 year was low and significantly not different between both groups.

Keyword

Percutaneous coronary intervention; drug-eluting stents; polymers; biolimus A9; zotarolimus; propensity score

MeSH Terms

Absorbable Implants
Aged
Cardiovascular Agents/*administration & dosage
Coronary Artery Disease/diagnosis/*therapy
Drug-Eluting Stents/*adverse effects
Female
Humans
Middle Aged
Myocardial Infarction/etiology
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/adverse effects
Polymers
*Propensity Score
Registries
Sirolimus/*administration & dosage/*analogs & derivatives
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Cardiovascular Agents
Polymers
Sirolimus

Reference

1. Choi YJ, Kim JB, Cho SJ, Cho J, Sohn J, Cho SK, et al. Changes in the practice of coronary Rrvascularization between 2006 and 2010 in the Republic of Korea. Yonsei Med J. 2015; 56:895–903.

2. Morice MC, Serruys PW, Sousa JE, Fajadet J, Ban Hayashi E, Perin M, et al. A randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent for coronary revascularization. N Engl J Med. 2002; 346:1773–1780.

3. Moses JW, Leon MB, Popma JJ, Fitzgerald PJ, Holmes DR, O'Shaughnessy C, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery. N Engl J Med. 2003; 349:1315–1323.

4. Stone GW, Ellis SG, Cox DA, Hermiller J, O'Shaughnessy C, Mann JT, et al. A polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2004; 350:221–231.

5. Camenzind E, Steg PG, Wijns W. Stent thrombosis late after implantation of first-generation drug-eluting stents: a cause for concern. Circulation. 2007; 115:1440–1455.

6. Daemen J, Wenaweser P, Tsuchida K, Abrecht L, Vaina S, Morger C, et al. Early and late coronary stent thrombosis of sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in routine clinical practice: data from a large two-institutional cohort study. Lancet. 2007; 369:667–678.

7. Sabate M, Cequier A, Iñiguez A, Serra A, Hernandez-Antolin R, Mainar V, et al. Everolimus-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (EXAMINATION): 1 year results of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012; 380:1482–1490.

8. Windecker S, Serruys PW, Wandel S, Buszman P, Trznadel S, Linke A, et al. Biolimus-eluting stent with biodegradable polymer versus sirolimus-eluting stent with durable polymer for coronary revascularisation (LEADERS): a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2008; 372:1163–1173.

9. Bangalore S, Kumar S, Fusaro M, Amoroso N, Attubato MJ, Feit F, et al. Short- and long-term outcomes with drug-eluting and bare-metal coronary stents: a mixed-treatment comparison analysis of 117 762 patient-years of follow-up from randomized trials. Circulation. 2012; 125:2873–2891.

10. Palmerini T, Biondi-Zoccai G, Della Riva D, Stettler C, Sangiorgi D, D'Ascenzo F, et al. Stent thrombosis with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis. Lancet. 2012; 379:1393–1402.

11. Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R, Boam A, Cohen DJ, van Es GA, et al. Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions. Circulation. 2007; 115:2344–2351.

12. Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res. 2011; 46:399–424.

13. Christiansen EH, Jensen LO, Thayssen P, Tilsted HH, Krusell LR, Hansen KN, et al. Biolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer-coated stent versus durable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent in unselected patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (SORT OUT V): a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2013; 381:661–669.

14. von Birgelen C, Sen H, Lam MK, Danse PW, Jessurun GA, Hautvast RW, et al. Third-generation zotarolimus-eluting and everolimus-eluting stents in all-comer patients requiring a percutaneous coronary intervention (DUTCH PEERS): a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2014; 383:413–423.

15. Iqbal J, Serruys PW, Silber S, Kelbaek H, Richardt G, Morel MA, et al. Comparison of zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting coronary stents: final 5-year report of the RESOLUTE all-comers trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 8:e002230.

16. Turco MA. The Integrity bare-metal stent made by continuous sinusoid technology. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2011; 8:303–306.

17. Rasmussen K, Maeng M, Kaltoft A, Thayssen P, Kelbaek H, Tilsted HH, et al. Efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting and sirolimuseluting coronary stents in routine clinical care (SORT OUT III): a randomised controlled superiority trial. Lancet. 2010; 375:1090–1099.

18. Leon MB, Kandzari DE, Eisenstein EL, Anstrom KJ, Mauri L, Cutlip DE, et al. Late safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of a zotarolimus-eluting stent compared with a paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with de novo coronary lesions: 2-year follow-up from the ENDEAVOR IV trial (Randomized, controlled trial of the medtronic endeavor drug [ABT-578] eluting coronary stent system versus the taxus paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent system in de novo native coronary artery lesions). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009; 2:1208–1218.

19. O'Brien B, Carroll W. The evolution of cardiovascular stent materials and surfaces in response to clinical drivers: a review. Acta Biomater. 2009; 5:945–958.

20. Nikam N, Steinberg TB, Steinberg DH. Advances in stent technologies and their effect on clinical efficacy and safety. Med Devices (Auckl). 2014; 7:165–178.

21. Stefanini GG, Byrne RA, Serruys PW, de Waha A, Meier B, Massberg S, et al. Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents reduce the risk of stent thrombosis at 4 years in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from the ISAR-TEST 3, ISAR-TEST 4, and LEADERS randomized trials. Eur Heart J. 2012; 33:1214–1222.

22. Smits PC, Hofma S, Togni M, Vázquez N, Valdés M, Voudris V, et al. Abluminal biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (COMPARE II): a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2013; 381:651–660.

23. Serruys P, Buszman P, Linke A, Ischinger T, Antoni D, Klauss V, et al. TCT-44 LEADERS: 5-year follow-up from a prospective, randomized trial of biolimus A9-eluting stents with a biodegradable polymer vs. sirolimus-eluting stents with a durable polymer: final report of the LEADERS study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 60:Suppl. B13–B14.

24. Schurtz G, Delhaye C, Hurt C, Thieuleux H, Lemesle G. Biodegradable polymer Biolimus-eluting stent (Nobori®) for the treatment of coronary artery lesions: review of concept and clinical results. Med Devices (Auckl). 2014; 7:35–43.

25. Lam MK, Sen H, Tandjung K, van Houwelingen KG, de Vries AG, Danse PW, et al. 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. Am Heart J. 2014; 167:445–451.

26. Kolandaivelu K, Swaminathan R, Gibson WJ, Kolachalama VB, Nguyen-Ehrenreich KL, Giddings VL, et al. Stent thrombogenicity early in high-risk interventional settings is driven by stent design and deployment and protected by polymer-drug coatings. Circulation. 2011; 123:1400–1409.

27. Pilgrim T, Heg D, Roffi M, Tüller D, Muller O, Vuilliomenet A, et al. Ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent for percutaneous coronary revascularisation (BIOSCIENCE): a randomised, single-blind, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2014; 384:2111–2122.