Background: There is limited data comparing the Xience everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and the Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) with the BioMatrix biolimus-eluting stent (BES). Methods: This open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial enrolled all-comer patients to be randomly treated with either BES, EES, or ZES in a 1:1:1 ratio in 15 centers across South Korea. The primary end point was a device-oriented composite outcome consisting of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization at 24 months. The BES was compared with the EES and the ZES by intention-to-treat analyses with a noninferiority margin of 3.8%, respectively. Results: Because of slow recruitment and low event rates, this trial was prematurely terminated after enrollment of 1935 (75%) of the intended 2580 patients. Of the 1911 patients randomized to either EES (n=638), BES (n=634), or ZES (n =639), the rate of device-oriented composite outcome was 3.6%, 2.2%, and 3.9%, respectively, at 24 months (BES versus EES: absolute risk difference -1.4% [upper limit of 1-sided 95% CI: -3.2%]; P for noninferiority <0.001; BES versus ZES: absolute risk difference -1.7% [upper limit of 1-sided 95% CI: -3.6%]; P for noninferiority <0.001). Conclusions: The BES was noninferior to either the EES or the ZES in all-comer patients for device-oriented composite outcome at the 24-month follow-up. However, caution is advised regarding interpretation of these results due to the premature termination of this study.
|Journal||Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions|
|Publication status||Published - 2020 Mar 1|
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
This study was supported by Gangwon Cardiovascular Health Research Institute (GCHRI), Wonju, Korea. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report.
© 2020 American Heart Association, Inc.
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine