Lior Zornitzki, Pieter C Smits, Michael P Love, Gregg W Stone, David E Kandzari, Bjorn Redfors, Melek O Ozan, Maayan Konigstein
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
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。
Comparison of Ridaforolimus-Eluting and Zotarolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents: 5-Year Outcomes From the BIONICS and NIREUS Trials.
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.
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.