Comparison of Ridaforolimus-Eluting and Zotarolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents: 5-Year Outcomes From the BIONICS and NIREUS Trials.

IF 5 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Journal of the American Heart Association Pub Date : 2024-11-19 Epub Date: 2024-11-15 DOI:10.1161/JAHA.124.036210
Lior Zornitzki, Pieter C Smits, Michael P Love, Gregg W Stone, David E Kandzari, Bjorn Redfors, Melek O Ozan, Maayan Konigstein
{"title":"Comparison of Ridaforolimus-Eluting and Zotarolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents: 5-Year Outcomes From the BIONICS and NIREUS Trials.","authors":"Lior Zornitzki, Pieter C Smits, Michael P Love, Gregg W Stone, David E Kandzari, Bjorn Redfors, Melek O Ozan, Maayan Konigstein","doi":"10.1161/JAHA.124.036210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The BIONICS (BioNIR Ridaforolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent System in Coronary Stenosis) and the NIREUS (BioNIR Ridaforolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [BioNIR] European Angiography Study) randomized clinical trials showed noninferiority of the ridaforolimus-eluting stent (RES) compared with the zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) with respect to 1-year target-lesion failure and 6-month angiographic late lumen loss. We aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes between treatment groups over a 5-year follow-up.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>Patient-level data from the BIONICS (n=1919) and NIREUS (n=302) were pooled, comparing the outcomes of patients implanted with RES and ZES. The primary end point was the 5-year rate of target-lesion failure. A total of 2221 patients (63.2±10.3 years, 79.7% men) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with RES (n=1159) or ZES (n=1062) were included. Most clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between groups. At 5 years, the primary end point of target-lesion failure was similar between treatment groups (12.2% RES versus 11.3% ZES, <i>P</i>=0.52). Rates of TLR (7.6% RES versus 6.8% ZES, <i>P</i>=0.42) target-vessel-related myocardial infarction (4.8% RES versus 4.9% ZES, <i>P</i>=0.95) and stent thrombosis (0.9% RES versus 0.9% ZES, <i>P</i>=0.87) also did not differ between groups. Target-vessel revascularization and cardiac death were higher among the RES group (12.3% versus 9.5% <i>P</i>=0.037, and 3.6% versus 2.2% <i>P</i>=0.042, respectively). However, after correction for baseline characteristics, there was no significant difference in cardiac death between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In a pooled analysis of 2 randomized trials, 5-year clinical outcomes were similar between patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with RES and ZES. These results support the long-term safety and efficacy of RES for the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease.</p>","PeriodicalId":54370,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Heart Association","volume":" ","pages":"e036210"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Heart Association","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.124.036210","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The BIONICS (BioNIR Ridaforolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent System in Coronary Stenosis) and the NIREUS (BioNIR Ridaforolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [BioNIR] European Angiography Study) randomized clinical trials showed noninferiority of the ridaforolimus-eluting stent (RES) compared with the zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) with respect to 1-year target-lesion failure and 6-month angiographic late lumen loss. We aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes between treatment groups over a 5-year follow-up.

Methods and results: Patient-level data from the BIONICS (n=1919) and NIREUS (n=302) were pooled, comparing the outcomes of patients implanted with RES and ZES. The primary end point was the 5-year rate of target-lesion failure. A total of 2221 patients (63.2±10.3 years, 79.7% men) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with RES (n=1159) or ZES (n=1062) were included. Most clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between groups. At 5 years, the primary end point of target-lesion failure was similar between treatment groups (12.2% RES versus 11.3% ZES, P=0.52). Rates of TLR (7.6% RES versus 6.8% ZES, P=0.42) target-vessel-related myocardial infarction (4.8% RES versus 4.9% ZES, P=0.95) and stent thrombosis (0.9% RES versus 0.9% ZES, P=0.87) also did not differ between groups. Target-vessel revascularization and cardiac death were higher among the RES group (12.3% versus 9.5% P=0.037, and 3.6% versus 2.2% P=0.042, respectively). However, after correction for baseline characteristics, there was no significant difference in cardiac death between groups.

Conclusions: In a pooled analysis of 2 randomized trials, 5-year clinical outcomes were similar between patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with RES and ZES. These results support the long-term safety and efficacy of RES for the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Ridaforolimus 洗脱冠状动脉支架与 Zotarolimus 洗脱冠状动脉支架的比较:BIONICS和NIREUS试验的5年结果。
背景:BIONICS(BioNIR Ridaforolimus洗脱冠状动脉支架系统治疗冠状动脉狭窄)和NIREUS(BioNIR Ridaforolimus洗脱冠状动脉支架系统[BioNIR]欧洲血管造影研究)随机临床试验显示,在1年靶病变失败和6个月血管造影晚期管腔损失方面,ridaforolimus洗脱支架(RES)与zotarolimus洗脱支架(ZES)相比无劣效性。我们的目标是评估治疗组在5年随访期间的临床结果:汇总了 BIONICS(1919 人)和 NIREUS(302 人)的患者数据,比较了植入 RES 和 ZES 患者的疗效。主要终点是5年靶病变失败率。共纳入了2221名接受RES(1159人)或ZES(1062人)经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的患者(63.2±10.3岁,79.7%为男性)。两组患者的大多数临床和血管造影特征相似。5年后,治疗组之间靶病变失败的主要终点相似(RES为12.2%,ZES为11.3%,P=0.52)。TLR(7.6% RES 对 6.8% ZES,P=0.42)、靶血管相关心肌梗死(4.8% RES 对 4.9% ZES,P=0.95)和支架血栓形成(0.9% RES 对 0.9% ZES,P=0.87)的发生率在治疗组之间也没有差异。RES组的靶血管血运重建率和心源性死亡率更高(分别为12.3%对9.5%,P=0.037;3.6%对2.2%,P=0.042)。然而,在对基线特征进行校正后,各组之间的心脏性死亡没有显著差异:在对两项随机试验的汇总分析中,使用 RES 和 ZES 进行经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的患者的 5 年临床结果相似。这些结果支持RES治疗冠心病患者的长期安全性和有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of the American Heart Association
Journal of the American Heart Association CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
1.90%
发文量
1749
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: As an Open Access journal, JAHA - Journal of the American Heart Association is rapidly and freely available, accelerating the translation of strong science into effective practice. JAHA is an authoritative, peer-reviewed Open Access journal focusing on cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease. JAHA provides a global forum for basic and clinical research and timely reviews on cardiovascular disease and stroke. As an Open Access journal, its content is free on publication to read, download, and share, accelerating the translation of strong science into effective practice.
期刊最新文献
Novel Adiposity Indices Are Associated With Poor Prognosis in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Without the Obesity Paradox. Non-ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Outcomes After a Percutaneous Coronary Intervention-Capable Facility Opening by Patient Race and Community Segregation. Work-Related Stress Is Associated With Unfavorable Cardiovascular Health: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. JAHA at Scientific Sessions 2023: Moving Toward Social Justice in Cardiovascular Health in the United States. Association Between Direct Oral Anticoagulant Score and Bleeding Events in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1