Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2020 Oct;7(2):e001394.
doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2020-001394.

Ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents: a meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents: a meta-analysis

Mohammad Riashad Monjur et al. Open Heart. 2020 Oct.

Abstract

Objectives: Determine whether an ultrathin biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent ('Orsiro'-BP-SES) has clinical benefits over second-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES).

Methods: We conducted a prospective systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials comparing Orsiro BP-SES against DP-DES (PROSPERO Registration: CRD42019147136). The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF): composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI) and clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation (TLR)) evaluated at the longest available follow-up.

Results: Nine trials randomised 11 302 patients to either Orsiro BP-SES or DP-DES. At mean weighted follow-up of 2.8 years, the primary outcome (TLF) occurred in 501 of 6089 (8.2%) participants with BP-SES compared with 495 of 5213 (9.5%) participants with DP-DES. This equates to an absolute risk reduction of 1.3% in TLF in favour of Orsiro BP-SES (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98; p=0.03). This was driven by a reduction in TVMI (OR 0.80; 95% CI 0.65 to 0.98; p=0.03). There were no significant differences in other clinical endpoints: cardiac death, TLR and stent thrombosis.

Conclusion: The Orsiro BP-SES shows promising clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention compared with contemporary second-generation DES at a short to medium term follow-up. More research is warranted to evaluate performance over a longer follow-up period and in different clinical and lesion subsets.

Keywords: acute coronary syndrome; coronary artery disease; coronary intervention (PCI); coronary stenting; interventional cardiology.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Risk-of-bias summary for trials included in the meta-analysis.
Figure 2
Figure 2
PRISMA flow chart for studies included in the meta-analysis. BP-EES, biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting stent; DP-DES, durable polymer drug-eluting stents; PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; RCT, randomised controlled trial; SES, sirolimus-eluting stent.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Target lesion failure and secondary end points. BP-SES, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent; DP-DES, durable polymer drug-eluting stents; TLR, target lesion revascularisation.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plots of primary outcome (A) and secondary outcomes (B–E) for Orsiro BP-SES versus DP-DES. BP-SES, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent; DP-DES, durable polymer drug-eluting stents.
Figure 5
Figure 5
11 302 participants randomised across 9 RCTs between the Orsiro BP-SES and DP-DES groups showed a significant reduction in TLF in participants with the Orsiro BP-SES. BP-SES, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (Odds ratio 0.82; 95% CI 0.69-0.98; P=0.03); DP-DES, durable polymer drug-eluting stents; RCTs, randomised controlled trials; TLF, target lesion failure.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Interaction of ACS and treatment effect (TLF) at study level between BP-SES and DP-DES groups. ACS, acute coronary syndrome; BP-SES, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent; DP-DES, durable polymer drug-eluting stents; TLF, target lesion failure.

References

    1. Canfield J, Totary-Jain H. 40 years of percutaneous coronary intervention: history and future directions. J Pers Med 2018;8:33. 10.3390/jpm8040033 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Newsome LT, Kutcher MA, Royster RL. Coronary artery stents: Part I. evolution of percutaneous coronary intervention. Anesth Analg 2008;107:552–69. 10.1213/ane.0b013e3181732049 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bangalore S. The elusive late benefit of biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents. Circulation 2019;139:334–6. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.038378 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lee D-H, de la Torre Hernandez JM. The newest generation of drug-eluting stents and beyond. Eur Cardiol 2018;13:54–9. 10.15420/ecr.2018:8:2 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bangalore S, Toklu B, Patel N, et al. . Newer-Generation ultrathin strut drug-eluting stents versus older second-generation Thicker strut drug-eluting stents for coronary artery disease. Circulation 2018;138:2216–26. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.034456 - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms