Objectives: Evaluate safety and efficacy of polymer-free biolimus-eluting stents (PF-BESs) versus ultrathin stents in unprotected left main (ULM) or bifurcation. Background: PF-BESs due to reduced length of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) are increasingly used. However, there are limited data about safety and efficacy for ULM or bifurcation. Methods: We selected all-patients treated for ULM or bifurcation from two multicenter real life registries (RAIN [NCT03544294] evaluating ultrathin stents, CHANCE [NCT03622203] appraising PF-BES). After propensity score with matching, the primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE; a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization [TLR], and stent thrombosis [ST]), while its components along with target vessel revascularization (TVR) secondary endpoints. Results: Three thousand and three patients treated with ultrathin stents and 446 with PF-BESs, resulting respectively in 562 and 281 after propensity score with matching (33 and 22%, respectively, with ULM disease). After 12 (8–20) months, rates of MACE were similar (9 vs. 8%, p = 0.56) without difference in TLR and ST (3.0 vs. 1.7%, p =.19 and 1.8 vs. 1.1%, p =.42). These results were consistent for ULM group (3 vs. 1.7% and 1.8 vs. 1.1%, p =.49 and.76), for non-ULM group (2.1 vs. 3.4%, p =.56 and 1.2 vs. 1.7%, p =.78) and for two-stent strategy (8.7 vs. 4.5% and 4.3 vs. 3.2%, p =.75 and.91). Among patients treated with 1 month of DAPT in both groups, those with ultrathin stents experienced higher rates of MACE related to all-cause death (22 vs. 12%, p =.04) with higher although not significant rates of ST (3 vs. 0%, p =.45). Conclusions: PF-BES implanted on ULM or BiF offered freedom from TLR and ST comparable to ultrathin stents. PF-BESs patients assuming DAPT for 1 month experienced a lower despite not significant incidence of ST.

Safety and efficacy of polymer-free biolimus-eluting stents versus ultrathin stents in unprotected left main or coronary bifurcation: A propensity score analysis from the RAIN and CHANCE registries / D'Ascenzo F.; Gaido L.; Bernardi A.; Saglietto A.; Franze A.; Ielasi A.; Trabattoni D.; Di Biasi M.; Infantino V.; Rognoni A.; Helft G.; Gangor A.; Latini R.A.; De Luca L.; Mitomo S.; Ugo F.; Smolka G.; Huczek Z.; Cortese B.; Capodanno D.; Chieffo A.; Piazza F.; di Mario C.; Poli A.; D'Urbano M.; Romeo F.; Giammaria M.; Varbella F.; Sheiban I.; Escaned J.; De Ferrari G.M.. - In: CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS. - ISSN 1522-1946. - ELETTRONICO. - 95:(2020), pp. 522-529. [10.1002/ccd.28413]

Safety and efficacy of polymer-free biolimus-eluting stents versus ultrathin stents in unprotected left main or coronary bifurcation: A propensity score analysis from the RAIN and CHANCE registries

di Mario C.;
2020

Abstract

Objectives: Evaluate safety and efficacy of polymer-free biolimus-eluting stents (PF-BESs) versus ultrathin stents in unprotected left main (ULM) or bifurcation. Background: PF-BESs due to reduced length of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) are increasingly used. However, there are limited data about safety and efficacy for ULM or bifurcation. Methods: We selected all-patients treated for ULM or bifurcation from two multicenter real life registries (RAIN [NCT03544294] evaluating ultrathin stents, CHANCE [NCT03622203] appraising PF-BES). After propensity score with matching, the primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE; a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization [TLR], and stent thrombosis [ST]), while its components along with target vessel revascularization (TVR) secondary endpoints. Results: Three thousand and three patients treated with ultrathin stents and 446 with PF-BESs, resulting respectively in 562 and 281 after propensity score with matching (33 and 22%, respectively, with ULM disease). After 12 (8–20) months, rates of MACE were similar (9 vs. 8%, p = 0.56) without difference in TLR and ST (3.0 vs. 1.7%, p =.19 and 1.8 vs. 1.1%, p =.42). These results were consistent for ULM group (3 vs. 1.7% and 1.8 vs. 1.1%, p =.49 and.76), for non-ULM group (2.1 vs. 3.4%, p =.56 and 1.2 vs. 1.7%, p =.78) and for two-stent strategy (8.7 vs. 4.5% and 4.3 vs. 3.2%, p =.75 and.91). Among patients treated with 1 month of DAPT in both groups, those with ultrathin stents experienced higher rates of MACE related to all-cause death (22 vs. 12%, p =.04) with higher although not significant rates of ST (3 vs. 0%, p =.45). Conclusions: PF-BES implanted on ULM or BiF offered freedom from TLR and ST comparable to ultrathin stents. PF-BESs patients assuming DAPT for 1 month experienced a lower despite not significant incidence of ST.
2020
95
522
529
Goal 3: Good health and well-being for people
D'Ascenzo F.; Gaido L.; Bernardi A.; Saglietto A.; Franze A.; Ielasi A.; Trabattoni D.; Di Biasi M.; Infantino V.; Rognoni A.; Helft G.; Gangor A.; Latini R.A.; De Luca L.; Mitomo S.; Ugo F.; Smolka G.; Huczek Z.; Cortese B.; Capodanno D.; Chieffo A.; Piazza F.; di Mario C.; Poli A.; D'Urbano M.; Romeo F.; Giammaria M.; Varbella F.; Sheiban I.; Escaned J.; De Ferrari G.M.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
ccd.28413.pdf

Accesso chiuso

Tipologia: Pdf editoriale (Version of record)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati
Dimensione 1.98 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.98 MB Adobe PDF   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in FLORE sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificatore per citare o creare un link a questa risorsa: https://hdl.handle.net/2158/1215168
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 2
social impact