Background/purpose: Biodegradable-polymer (BP) and polymer-free (PF) drug eluting stents (DES) were developed to reduce the risk of delayed arterial healing observed with durable-polymer (DP) platforms. Although trials demonstrate BP-DES and PF-DES are non-inferior to DP-DES, there is limited data directly comparing these technologies. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of BP-DES versus PF-DES for the treatment of coronary artery disease.
Methods/materials: Electronic searches were performed identifying randomized trials comparing BP-DES with PF-DES. Co-primary efficacy endpoints were target vessel revascularization (TVR), target lesion revascularization (TLR) and angiographic in-stent late lumen loss (LLL). Co-secondary safety endpoints were all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI) and stent thrombosis (ST).
Results: Of 208 studies, 5 met inclusion criteria including 1975 patients. At mean follow-up (14 ± 5 months), BP-DES were associated with significantly reduced rates of TVR (OR 0.58, 95%CI 0.37-0.92, p = 0.02), TLR (4.7% vs 9.5%) (OR 0.48, 95%CI 0.31-0.75, p = 0.001) and in-stent LLL (pooled mean difference -0.20 mm, 95%CI -0.24 to -0.16, p < 0.001). There was no difference in safety, including all-cause death (OR 1.24, 95%CI 0.68-2.28, p = 0.48), MI (OR 0.92, 95%CI 0.54-1.56, p = 0.75) or ST (OR 1.58, 95%CI 0.67-3.73, p = 0.30).
Conclusions: These data suggests that BP-DES are more efficacious when compared with PF-DES for the treatment of CAD.
Keywords: Biodegradable-polymer stent; Coronary artery disease; Drug-eluting stent; Percutaneous coronary intervention; Polymer-free stent.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.