Abstract
We conducted propensity-score matched comparisons of midterm angiographic outcomes of sirolimus (SES) versus either everolimus- (EES) or biolimus- (BES) eluting stents after placements for coronary stenosis in a daily practice environment since previous randomized trials did not demonstrate the superiority of EES and BES over SES in terms of midterm angiographic outcomes.
The present study was a non-randomized, retrospective, and lesion-based study, recruiting angiographically followed-up lesions within 550 days after successful and elective SES (n = 1793), EES (n = 1303), or BES (n = 324) placement for de novo native coronary stenosis during the period from August 2004 to January 2014 at 6 institutes. The endpoint, as an angiographic surrogate marker of clinical efficacy, was the distribution of in-stent follow-up percent diameter stenosis (%DS) which comprised the percentages of 1) follow-up %DS < 20 and 2) follow-up %DS > 50. Propensityscore matched analyses were conducted to adjust 21 baselines.
In 1215 baseline adjusted lesions, the endpoints in the EES group [1) 74.1%, and 2) 4.6%] were significantly different from those in the SES group [57.9%; P < 0.001, 7.2%; P = 0.006, respectively). In 307 baseline adjusted lesions, the endpoints in the BES group [1) 80.5%, 2) 2.0%] were significantly different from those in the SES group [59.3%; P < 0.001, 2) 8.1%; P = 0.001, respectively].
The present study is the first to confirm the superiority of midterm angiographic outcomes after the placement of EES and BES over SES for de novo coronary stenosis in a clinical setting.
