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 (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Lancet, 2008
A novel stent platform eluting biolimus, a sirolimus analogue, from a biodegradable polymer showed promising results in preliminary studies. We compared the safety and efficacy of a biolimus-eluting stent (with biodegradable polymer) with a sirolimus-eluting stent (with durable polymer). We undertook a multicentre, assessor-blind, non-inferiority study in ten European centres. 1707 patients aged 18 years or older with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes were centrally randomised by a computer-generated allocation sequence to treatment with either biolimus-eluting (n=857) or sirolimus-eluting (n=850) stents. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or clinically-indicated target vessel revascularisation within 9 months. Analysis was by intention to treat. 427 patients were randomly allocated to angiographic follow-up, with in-stent percentage diameter stenosis as principal outcome measure at 9 months. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00389220. We analysed all randomised patients. Biolimus-eluting stents were non-inferior to sirolimus-eluting stents for the primary endpoint at 9 months (79 [9%] patients vs 89 [11%], rate ratio 0.88 [95% CI 0.64-1.19], p for non-inferiority=0.003, p for superiority=0.39). Frequency of cardiac death (14 [1.6%] vs 21 [2.5%], p for superiority=0.22), myocardial infarction (49 [5.7%] vs 39 [4.6%], p=0.30), and clinically-indicated target vessel revascularisation (38 [4.4%] vs 47 [5.5%], p=0.29) were similar for both stent types. 168 (79%) patients in the biolimus-eluting group and 167 (78%) in the sirolimus-eluting group had data for angiographic follow-up available. Biolimus-eluting stents were non-inferior to sirolimus-eluting stents in in-stent percentage diameter stenosis (20.9%vs 23.3%, difference -2.2% [95% CI -6.0 to 1.6], p for non-inferiority=0.001, p for superiority=0.26). Our results suggest that a stent eluting biolimus from a biodegradable polymer represents a safe and effective alternative to a stent eluting sirolimus from a durable polymer in patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes. Biosensors Europe SA, Switzerland.
2010
Aims: This study reports the 12-month clinical outcomes of the LEADERS clinical trial which compared a biolimus eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer (BES) to a sirolimus eluting stent with a durable polymer (SES). Methods and results: The multicentre LEADERS trial employed an all-comers approach to recruit 1,707 patients who were randomised to treatment with either BES (n=857) or SES (n=850) in a noninferiority design. The primary clinical endpoint of this study was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and clinical-indicated target vessel revascularisation. Follow-up was obtained in 97.6% of patients. At 12 months, BES remained non-inferior compared to SES for the primary endpoint (BES 10.6% vs.
Jacc-cardiovascular Interventions, 2011
This study sought to investigate safety and efficacy of biolimus-eluting stents (BES) with biodegradable polymer as compared with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) with durable polymer through 2 years of follow-up.BES with a biodegradable polymer provide similar efficacy and safety as SES with a durable polymer at 9 months. Clinical outcomes beyond the period of biodegradation of the polymer used for drug release and after discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy are of particular interest.A total of 1,707 patients were randomized to unrestricted use of BES (n = 857) or SES (n = 850) in an all-comers patient population.At 2 years, BES remained noninferior compared with SES for the primary endpoint, which was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization (BES 12.8% vs. SES 15.2%, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65 to 1.08, pnoninferiority < 0.0001, psuperiority = 0.18). Rates of cardiac death (3.2% vs. 3.9%, HR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.35, p = 0.42), myocardial infarction (6.3% vs. 5.6%, HR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.65, p = 0.56), and clinically indicated target vessel revascularization (7.5% vs. 8.6%, HR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.20, p = 0.38) were similar for BES and SES. The rate of definite stent thrombosis through 2 years was 2.2% for BES and 2.5% for SES (p = 0.73). For the period between 1 and 2 years, event rates for definite stent thrombosis were 0.2% for BES and 0.5% for SES (p = 0.42). After discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy, no very late definite stent thrombosis occurred in the BES group.At 2 years of follow-up, the unrestricted use of BES with a biodegradable polymer maintained a similar safety and efficacy profile as SES with a durable polymer. (Limus Eluted From a Durable Versus Erodable Stent Coating [LEADERS]; NCT00389220)
The Lancet, 2013
Background Drug-eluting stents with durable biocompatible or biodegradable polymers have been developed to address the risk of thrombosis associated with fi rst-generation drug-eluting stents. We aimed to compare the safety and effi cacy of a biodegradable polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent with a thin-strut everolimus-eluting stent coated with a durable biocompatible polymer. Methods This open-label, prospective, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial was undertaken at 12 sites across Europe. We used limited exclusion criteria (age >18 years, life expectancy >5 years, reference vessel diameter 2•0-4•0 mm) to enrol patients eligible for percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly allocated (2:1) by computer-generated random numbers to receive either a biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent (Nobori, Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) or a durable fl uoropolymer-based everolimus-eluting stent (Xience V or Prime,
Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2013
Despite the undeniable clinical efficacy of drug-eluting stents with durable polymers, concerns regarding their long-term safety have been raised, especially in more complex subsets. The Manipal-S Registry was designed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the biodegradable polymer coated Supralimus(®) Sirolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent for the treatment of coronary artery disease, across a wide range of patients who are treated in real-life clinical practice. All the consecutive 116 patients who underwent single-vessel or multiple vessel percutaneous coronary interventions with the use of Supralimus(®) sirolimus-eluting stents between September 2009 and December 2010, were included in this study. Patients were clinically followed-up at 1, 9, 12 and 24 months post-procedure. All clinical, procedural, and follow-up information were collected and analysed. In total 116 patients, 126 lesions were implanted with 144 stents which had an average stent length of 25.8±8.0 mm. The incide...
Indian Heart Journal, 2020
This study was designed to evaluate the safety and performance of Metafor™ SES in real-world patients with coronary artery disease. This was retrospective, single-centre, post-marketing, observational study. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac event (MACE). A total of 141 patients (187 lesions) were treated with the study device. The average stent length and diameter was 24.75 ± 9.50 mm and 2.93 ± 0.38 mm, respectively. The cumulative incidence of MACE was 1.42%. No incidence of stent thrombosis was observed at 12-months follow-up. This retrospective study demonstrated favourable safety and performance of Metafor™ SES.