Comparison of long-term clinical outcomes in multivessel coronary artery disease patients treated either with bioresoarbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent or permanent polymer everolimus-eluting stent: 5-year results of the CENTURY II randomized clinical trial
Identificadores
Identificadores
Visualización ou descarga de ficheiros
Visualización ou descarga de ficheiros
Data de publicación
2020Título da revista
CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS
Tipo de contido
Journal Article
DeCS
resultado del tratamiento | polímeros | fármacos cardiovasculares | estudios prospectivos | factores de riesgo | diseño de prótesis | mediana edad | sirolimus | anciano | método simple ciego | humanos | factores de tiempo | enfermedad arterial coronaria | estenosis coronaria | cirugía coronaria percutánea | República de CoreaMeSH
Risk Factors | Single-Blind Method | Middle Aged | Coronary Stenosis | Prosthesis Design | Polymers | Percutaneous Coronary Intervention | Humans | Treatment Outcome | Time Factors | Republic of Korea | Sirolimus | Coronary Artery Disease | Prospective Studies | Cardiovascular Agents | AgedResumo
OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term safety and efficacy of a sirolimus-eluting stent with bioresorbable polymer (BP-SES; Ultimaster), in comparison to a benchmark everolimus-eluting, permanent polymer stent (PP-EES; Xience), in a prespecified subgroup of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) enrolled in the CENTURY II trial. BACKGROUND: The use of coronary stenting in high-risk subgroups, like MVD patients, is rising. The clinical evidence, including long-term comparative analysis of the efficacy and safety benefits of different new-generation drug eluting stents, however, remains insufficient. METHODS: Among 1,119 patients (intention-to-treat) enrolled in the CENTURY II prospective, randomized, single-blind, multicenter trial, a prespecified subgroup of 456 MVD patients were allocated by stratified randomization to treatment with BP-SES (n = 225) or PP-EES (n = 231). The previously reported primary endpoint of this study was freedom from target lesion failure (TLF: a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction [MI] and clinically-indicated target lesion revascularization) at 9 months. RESULTS: In this MVD substudy, baseline patient, lesion and procedure characteristics were similar between the treatment arms. At 1 and 5 years, both BP-SES and PP-EES displayed low and comparable rates of TLF (5.3 vs. 7.8%; p = .29 and 10.2 vs. 13.4%; p = .29), and definite or probable stent thrombosis (0.4 vs. 1.3%; p = .33 and 0.9 vs. 1.7%; p = .43), respectively. Composite endpoint of cardiac death and MI, and patient-oriented composite endpoint of any death, MI, and coronary revascularizations were also similar. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm good long-term safety and efficacy of the studied bioresorbable polymer stent in this high-risk patient population.