• Ehsan Parsa, Sepideh Saroukhani, Fereshteh Majlessi, Hamidreza Poorhosseini, Masoumeh Lofti-Tokaldany, Arash Jalali, Mojtaba Salarifar, Ebrahim Nematipour, Mohammad Alidoosti, Hassan Aghajani, Alireza Amirzadegan, and Seyed Ebrahim Kassaian.
• Tex Heart Inst J. 2016 Apr 1; 43 (2): 126-30.

AbstractWe compared outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention patients who received biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stents with those who received durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents. At Tehran Heart Center, we performed a retrospective analysis of the data from January 2007 through December 2011 on 3,270 consecutive patients with coronary artery disease who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent or the durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent. We excluded patients with histories of coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention, acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, or the implantation of 2 different stent types. Patients were monitored for 12 months. The primary endpoint was a major adverse cardiac event, defined as a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target-vessel and target-lesion revascularization. Durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents were implanted in 2,648 (81%) and biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stents in 622 (19%) of the study population. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups (2.7% vs 2.7%; P=0.984) in the incidence of major adverse cardiac events. The cumulative adjusted probability of major adverse cardiac events in the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent group did not differ from that of such events in the durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent group (hazard ratio=0.768; 95% confidence interval, 0.421-1.44; P=0.388). We conclude that in our patients the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent was as effective and safe, during the 12-month follow-up period, as was the durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent.

27 keywords...

hide…