• Na Xu, Lin Jiang, Yi Yao, Jingjing Xu, Ru Liu, Huanhuan Wang, Ying Song, Lijian Gao, Zhan Gao, Xueyan Zhao, Bo Xu, Yaling Han, and Jinqing Yuan.
• Department of Cardiology, Fuwai Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100037, China.
• Chin. Med. J. 2023 Feb 5; 136 (3): 322330322-330.

BackgroundThere are few data comparing clinical outcomes of complex percutaneous coronary intervention (CPCI) when using biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) or second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES). The purpose of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of BP-DES and compare that with DP-DES in patients with and without CPCI during a 5-year follow-up.MethodsPatients who exclusively underwent BP-DES or DP-DES implantation in 2013 at Fuwai Hospital were consecutively enrolled and stratified into two categories based on CPCI presence or absence. CPCI included at least one of the following features: unprotected left main lesion, ≥2 lesions treated, ≥2 stents implanted, total stent length >40 mm, moderate-to-severe calcified lesion, chronic total occlusion, or bifurcated target lesion. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction, and total coronary revascularization (target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization [TVR], and non-TVR) during the 5-year follow-up. The secondary endpoint was total coronary revascularization.ResultsAmong the 7712 patients included, 4882 (63.3%) underwent CPCI. Compared with non-CPCI patients, CPCI patients had higher 2- and 5-year incidences of MACE and total coronary revascularization. Following multivariable adjustment including stent type, CPCI was an independent predictor of MACE (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.151; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.017-1.303, P  = 0.026) and total coronary revascularization (aHR: 1.199; 95% CI: 1.037-1.388, P  = 0.014) at 5 years. The results were consistent at the 2-year endpoints. In patients with CPCI, BP-DES use was associated with significantly higher MACE rates at 5 years (aHR: 1.256; 95% CI: 1.078-1.462, P  = 0.003) and total coronary revascularization (aHR: 1.257; 95% CI: 1.052-1.502, P  = 0.012) compared with that of DP-DES, but there was a similar risk at 2 years. However, BP-DES had comparable safety and efficacy profiles including MACE and total coronary revascularization compared with DP-DES in patients with non-CPCI at 2 and 5 years.ConclusionsPatients underwent CPCI remained at a higher risk of mid- to long-term adverse events regardless of the stent type. The effect of BP-DES compared with DP-DES on outcomes was similar in CPCI and non-CPCI patients at 2 years but had inconsistent effects at the 5-year clinical endpoints.Copyright © 2022 The Chinese Medical Association, produced by Wolters Kluwer, Inc. under the CC-BY-NC-ND license.

17 keywords...

hide…