Ultrathin, bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus thin, durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation (BIOFLOW V): a randomised trial
- PMID: 28851504
- DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32249-3
Ultrathin, bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus thin, durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation (BIOFLOW V): a randomised trial
Erratum in
-
Department of Error.Lancet. 2017 Oct 21;390(10105):1832. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32437-6. Epub 2017 Sep 17. Lancet. 2017. PMID: 28923464 No abstract available.
Abstract
Background: The development of coronary drug-eluting stents has included use of new metal alloys, changes in stent architecture, and use of bioresorbable polymers. Whether these advancements improve clinical safety and efficacy has not been shown in previous randomised trials. We aimed to examine the clinical outcomes of a bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in a broad patient population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
Methods: BIOFLOW V was an international, randomised trial done in patients undergoing elective and urgent percutaneous coronary intervention in 90 hospitals in 13 countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, and the USA). Eligible patients were those aged 18 years or older with ischaemic heart disease undergoing planned stent implantation in de-novo, native coronary lesions. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to either an ultrathin strut (60 μm) bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent or to a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent. Randomisation was via a central web-based data capture system (mixed blocks of 3 and 6), and stratified by study site. The primary endpoint was 12-month target lesion failure. The primary non-inferiority comparison combined these data from two additional randomised trials of bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent with Bayesian methods. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02389946.
Findings: Between May 8, 2015, and March 31, 2016, 4772 patients were recruited into the study. 1334 patients met inclusion criteria and were randomly assigned to treatment with bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (n=884) or durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (n=450). 52 (6%) of 883 patients in the bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent group and 41 (10%) of 427 patients in the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent group met the 12-month primary endpoint of target lesion failure (95% CI -6·84 to -0·29, p=0·0399), with differences in target vessel myocardial infarction (39 [5%] of 831 patients vs 35 [8%] of 424 patients, p=0·0155). The posterior probability that the bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent is non-inferior to the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent was 100% (Bayesian analysis, difference in target lesion failure frequency -2·6% [95% credible interval -5·5 to 0·1], non-inferiority margin 3·85%, n=2208).
Interpretation: The outperformance of the ultrathin, bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent over the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in a complex patient population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention suggests a new direction in improving next generation drug-eluting stent technology.
Funding: BIOTRONIK.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Comment in
-
Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents: caveat emptor.Lancet. 2017 Oct 21;390(10105):1814-1816. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32668-5. Epub 2017 Oct 19. Lancet. 2017. PMID: 29082870 No abstract available.
-
Bioresorbable polymer drug-eluting stents.Lancet. 2018 Mar 10;391(10124):935-936. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30528-2. Lancet. 2018. PMID: 29536854 No abstract available.
-
Bioresorbable polymer drug-eluting stents - Authors' reply.Lancet. 2018 Mar 10;391(10124):936-937. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30535-X. Lancet. 2018. PMID: 29536855 No abstract available.
-
Bioresorbable polymer drug-eluting stents.Lancet. 2018 Mar 10;391(10124):936. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30532-4. Lancet. 2018. PMID: 29536856 No abstract available.
-
Should ultrathin strut drug eluting stents be considered the new benchmark for novel coronary stents approval? The complex interplay between stent strut thickness, polymeric carriers and antiproliferative drugs.J Thorac Dis. 2018 Feb;10(2):678-681. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2018.01.108. J Thorac Dis. 2018. PMID: 29607133 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Ultrathin strut biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents: being wary or going with the flow?J Thorac Dis. 2018 Feb;10(2):688-692. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2018.01.118. J Thorac Dis. 2018. PMID: 29607135 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
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 Dec 13;384(9960):2111-22. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61038-2. Epub 2014 Sep 1. Lancet. 2014. PMID: 25189359 Clinical Trial.
-
Biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (BIOSTEMI): a single-blind, prospective, randomised superiority trial.Lancet. 2019 Oct 5;394(10205):1243-1253. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31877-X. Epub 2019 Sep 2. Lancet. 2019. PMID: 31488372 Clinical Trial.
-
A sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer-coated stent (MiStent) versus an everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent (Xience) after percutaneous coronary intervention (DESSOLVE III): a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial.Lancet. 2018 Feb 3;391(10119):431-440. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)33103-3. Epub 2017 Dec 5. Lancet. 2018. PMID: 29203070 Clinical Trial.
-
Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Lancet. 2016 Feb 6;387(10018):537-544. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00979-4. Epub 2015 Nov 17. Lancet. 2016. PMID: 26597771 Review.
-
Biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents vs durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of individual patient data from 5 randomized trials.Am Heart J. 2021 May;235:140-148. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2021.02.009. Epub 2021 Feb 17. Am Heart J. 2021. PMID: 33609498 Review.
Cited by
-
Small Vessel Coronary Artery Disease: Rationale for Standardized Definition and Critical Appraisal of the Literature.J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2022 Jul 11;1(5):100403. doi: 10.1016/j.jscai.2022.100403. eCollection 2022 Sep-Oct. J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2022. PMID: 39131458 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Cre8 Drug Eluting Stent Performance in Daily Cardiology Practice.Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2023 Feb 6;24(2):53. doi: 10.31083/j.rcm2402053. eCollection 2023 Feb. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2023. PMID: 39077417 Free PMC article.
-
Comparative effectiveness of ultrathin vs. standard strut drug-eluting stents: insights from a large-scale meta-analysis with extended follow-up.Eur J Med Res. 2024 Jul 27;29(1):388. doi: 10.1186/s40001-024-01949-7. Eur J Med Res. 2024. PMID: 39068447 Free PMC article.
-
Real-World Clinical Performance of a Novolimus-Eluting Stent Versus a Sirolimus-Eluting Stent.Clin Cardiol. 2024 Jul;47(7):e24317. doi: 10.1002/clc.24317. Clin Cardiol. 2024. PMID: 38953595 Free PMC article.
-
Ultrathin-strut versus thin-strut stent healing and outcomes in preclinical and clinical subjects.EuroIntervention. 2024 May 20;20(10):e669-e680. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00563. EuroIntervention. 2024. PMID: 38776143
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Miscellaneous
