Objectives
We sought to determine the 1‐year clinical follow‐up in patients treated with the thin strut (71 μm) bioabsorbable polymer‐coated sirolimus‐eluting stent (BP‐SES) vs durable coating everolimus eluting stent (DP‐EES) in daily clinical routine.
Background
Presence of durable polymers may be associated with late/very late stent thrombosis occurrence and the need for prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy. Bioabsorbable polymers may facilitate stent healing, thus enhancing clinical safety.
Methods
Interventional Cardiology Network Registry is a prospective, multicenter, observational registry of 21,400 consecutive patients treated with PCI since 2010. We analyzed 4,670 patients treated with either a BP‐SES (ALEX, Balton, Poland) or DP‐EES (XIENCE, Abbott, USA) with available 1‐year clinical follow‐up using propensity‐score matching. Outcomes included target vessel revascularization (TVR) as efficacy outcome and all cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and definite/probable stent thrombosis as safety outcomes.
Results
After propensity score matching, 1,649 patients treated with BP‐SES and 1,649 patients treated with DP‐EES were selected. Procedural and clinical characteristics were similar between both groups. There was no significant difference between tested groups in in‐hospital mortality. One‐year follow‐up demonstrated comparable efficacy outcome, TVR (BP‐SES 5.9% vs DP‐EES 4.6% P = 0.45), as well as comparable safety outcomes, all cause death, MI and definite/probable stent thrombosis.
Conclusions
In this multicenter registry, the BP‐SES thin strut biodegradable polymer‐coated sirolimus‐eluting stent demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes at 1‐year after implantation to the DP‐EES. These data support the relative safety and efficacy of DP‐SES in a broad range of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.