Comparison of ridaforolimus-eluting and zotarolimus-eluting coronary stents: 5-Year outcomes from the BIONICS and NIREUS trials
Abstract Introduction Despite similarities between different modern drug eluting stents (DES), their comparative short and long-term safety and efficacy has generated much interest and yielded conflicting results. The BIONICS and the NIREUS randomized clinical trials showed non-inferiority of the Ri...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European heart journal 2024-10, Vol.45 (Supplement_1) |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | Supplement_1 |
container_start_page | |
container_title | European heart journal |
container_volume | 45 |
creator | Zornitzki, L Smits, P C Love, M P Stone, G W Kandzari, D E Redfors, B Ozan, M O Konigstein, M |
description | Abstract
Introduction
Despite similarities between different modern drug eluting stents (DES), their comparative short and long-term safety and efficacy has generated much interest and yielded conflicting results. The BIONICS and the NIREUS randomized clinical trials showed non-inferiority of the Ridaforolimus eluting stent (RES) compared to the Zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) with respect to 1-year target lesion failure (TLF) and 6-month angiographic late lumen loss.
Aim
To evaluate clinical outcomes between treatment groups over 5 years follow-up
Methods
BIONICS and NIREUS were prospective, randomized, single-blind multicenter trials comparing RES and ZES in patients undergoing PCI. Patients were blinded to treatment assignment and randomized to RES or ZES in a 1:1 fashion in BIONICS, and in 2:1 fashion in NIREUS. Clinical events were assessed during hospital stay, at 30 days, 1 year, and yearly thereafter, up to 5 years. The The primary endpoint in the current study was the 5-year rate of target lesion failure (TLF).
Results
The study population included 2221 patients enrolled in the BIONICS (n=1919) and NIREUS (n=302) studies. Median follow-up was 1822 days (interquartile range 1783 to 1847 days). Mean age was 63.2±10.3 years, and most patients were men (79.7%). Clinical presentation with ACS was similar between groups (38.9% versus 37.9%, RES versus ZES, respectively, p=0.38).
Procedural characteristics were similar for patients treated with RES and ZES. A mean of 1.6±0.9 and 1.5±0.8 stents were implanted in RES and ZES patients, respectively, p=0.08. Post dilatation was performed more frequently in the RES group (63.3% versus 60.1%, p=0.02) and procedure duration was longer in RES versus ZES patients (47.0±31.8 minutes versus 44.6±29.2 minutes, p=0.01). Device success was high in both groups but slightly higher in the ZES group (98.2% versus 99.5% for RES and ZES, respectively, p=0.002) yet with similar procedural success (97.9% versus 97.3%, p=0.49).
At 5 years, the primary endpoint of TLF 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 MI (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 (TVR) 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 |
doi_str_mv | 10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.2405 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>oup_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_eurheartj_ehae666_2405</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.2405</oup_id><sourcerecordid>10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.2405</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c895-b5e23be8823fa13617ab7bee3c985fff481da152b9f18382d9715f92b66974b33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkN9KwzAYxYMoOKevIHmBzvxp0sQ7LVMLYwM3Qa9K2iauY21Gkl7oja9u5oYXXnl14PCdw_l-AFxjNMFI0hs9uLVWLmxu9FppzvmEpIidgBFmhCSSp-wUjBCWLOFcvJ6DC-83CCHBMR-Br9x2O-Vab3toDXRto4x1dtt2g0_0dght_w5V38BPG9Rfv46XvXIf0AfdB38LWfIWl0A7hNp22kPjbAfDWsP7YjEv8uVP07x4nr4sYXCt2vpLcGai6KujjsHqYbrKn5LZ4rHI72ZJLeLwimlCKy0EoUZhynGmqqzSmtZSMGNMKnCj4ruVNFhQQRqZYWYkqTiXWVpROgb8UFs7673Tpty5tovTS4zKPcXyl2J5pFjuKcYgPgTtsPtv5hsPNn0Y</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of ridaforolimus-eluting and zotarolimus-eluting coronary stents: 5-Year outcomes from the BIONICS and NIREUS trials</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><creator>Zornitzki, L ; Smits, P C ; Love, M P ; Stone, G W ; Kandzari, D E ; Redfors, B ; Ozan, M O ; Konigstein, M</creator><creatorcontrib>Zornitzki, L ; Smits, P C ; Love, M P ; Stone, G W ; Kandzari, D E ; Redfors, B ; Ozan, M O ; Konigstein, M</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract
Introduction
Despite similarities between different modern drug eluting stents (DES), their comparative short and long-term safety and efficacy has generated much interest and yielded conflicting results. The BIONICS and the NIREUS randomized clinical trials showed non-inferiority of the Ridaforolimus eluting stent (RES) compared to the Zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) with respect to 1-year target lesion failure (TLF) and 6-month angiographic late lumen loss.
Aim
To evaluate clinical outcomes between treatment groups over 5 years follow-up
Methods
BIONICS and NIREUS were prospective, randomized, single-blind multicenter trials comparing RES and ZES in patients undergoing PCI. Patients were blinded to treatment assignment and randomized to RES or ZES in a 1:1 fashion in BIONICS, and in 2:1 fashion in NIREUS. Clinical events were assessed during hospital stay, at 30 days, 1 year, and yearly thereafter, up to 5 years. The The primary endpoint in the current study was the 5-year rate of target lesion failure (TLF).
Results
The study population included 2221 patients enrolled in the BIONICS (n=1919) and NIREUS (n=302) studies. Median follow-up was 1822 days (interquartile range 1783 to 1847 days). Mean age was 63.2±10.3 years, and most patients were men (79.7%). Clinical presentation with ACS was similar between groups (38.9% versus 37.9%, RES versus ZES, respectively, p=0.38).
Procedural characteristics were similar for patients treated with RES and ZES. A mean of 1.6±0.9 and 1.5±0.8 stents were implanted in RES and ZES patients, respectively, p=0.08. Post dilatation was performed more frequently in the RES group (63.3% versus 60.1%, p=0.02) and procedure duration was longer in RES versus ZES patients (47.0±31.8 minutes versus 44.6±29.2 minutes, p=0.01). Device success was high in both groups but slightly higher in the ZES group (98.2% versus 99.5% for RES and ZES, respectively, p=0.002) yet with similar procedural success (97.9% versus 97.3%, p=0.49).
At 5 years, the primary endpoint of TLF 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 MI (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 (TVR) 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 two randomized trials, 5-year clinical outcomes were similar between patients undergoing PCI with RES and ZES. These results support the long-term safety and efficacy of RES for the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease.Central illustrationZES vs. RES</description><identifier>ISSN: 0195-668X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1522-9645</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.2405</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>US: Oxford University Press</publisher><ispartof>European heart journal, 2024-10, Vol.45 (Supplement_1)</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com. 2024</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Zornitzki, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smits, P C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Love, M P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stone, G W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kandzari, D E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Redfors, B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ozan, M O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Konigstein, M</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of ridaforolimus-eluting and zotarolimus-eluting coronary stents: 5-Year outcomes from the BIONICS and NIREUS trials</title><title>European heart journal</title><description>Abstract
Introduction
Despite similarities between different modern drug eluting stents (DES), their comparative short and long-term safety and efficacy has generated much interest and yielded conflicting results. The BIONICS and the NIREUS randomized clinical trials showed non-inferiority of the Ridaforolimus eluting stent (RES) compared to the Zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) with respect to 1-year target lesion failure (TLF) and 6-month angiographic late lumen loss.
Aim
To evaluate clinical outcomes between treatment groups over 5 years follow-up
Methods
BIONICS and NIREUS were prospective, randomized, single-blind multicenter trials comparing RES and ZES in patients undergoing PCI. Patients were blinded to treatment assignment and randomized to RES or ZES in a 1:1 fashion in BIONICS, and in 2:1 fashion in NIREUS. Clinical events were assessed during hospital stay, at 30 days, 1 year, and yearly thereafter, up to 5 years. The The primary endpoint in the current study was the 5-year rate of target lesion failure (TLF).
Results
The study population included 2221 patients enrolled in the BIONICS (n=1919) and NIREUS (n=302) studies. Median follow-up was 1822 days (interquartile range 1783 to 1847 days). Mean age was 63.2±10.3 years, and most patients were men (79.7%). Clinical presentation with ACS was similar between groups (38.9% versus 37.9%, RES versus ZES, respectively, p=0.38).
Procedural characteristics were similar for patients treated with RES and ZES. A mean of 1.6±0.9 and 1.5±0.8 stents were implanted in RES and ZES patients, respectively, p=0.08. Post dilatation was performed more frequently in the RES group (63.3% versus 60.1%, p=0.02) and procedure duration was longer in RES versus ZES patients (47.0±31.8 minutes versus 44.6±29.2 minutes, p=0.01). Device success was high in both groups but slightly higher in the ZES group (98.2% versus 99.5% for RES and ZES, respectively, p=0.002) yet with similar procedural success (97.9% versus 97.3%, p=0.49).
At 5 years, the primary endpoint of TLF 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 MI (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 (TVR) 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 two randomized trials, 5-year clinical outcomes were similar between patients undergoing PCI with RES and ZES. These results support the long-term safety and efficacy of RES for the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease.Central illustrationZES vs. RES</description><issn>0195-668X</issn><issn>1522-9645</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkN9KwzAYxYMoOKevIHmBzvxp0sQ7LVMLYwM3Qa9K2iauY21Gkl7oja9u5oYXXnl14PCdw_l-AFxjNMFI0hs9uLVWLmxu9FppzvmEpIidgBFmhCSSp-wUjBCWLOFcvJ6DC-83CCHBMR-Br9x2O-Vab3toDXRto4x1dtt2g0_0dght_w5V38BPG9Rfv46XvXIf0AfdB38LWfIWl0A7hNp22kPjbAfDWsP7YjEv8uVP07x4nr4sYXCt2vpLcGai6KujjsHqYbrKn5LZ4rHI72ZJLeLwimlCKy0EoUZhynGmqqzSmtZSMGNMKnCj4ruVNFhQQRqZYWYkqTiXWVpROgb8UFs7673Tpty5tovTS4zKPcXyl2J5pFjuKcYgPgTtsPtv5hsPNn0Y</recordid><startdate>20241028</startdate><enddate>20241028</enddate><creator>Zornitzki, L</creator><creator>Smits, P C</creator><creator>Love, M P</creator><creator>Stone, G W</creator><creator>Kandzari, D E</creator><creator>Redfors, B</creator><creator>Ozan, M O</creator><creator>Konigstein, M</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20241028</creationdate><title>Comparison of ridaforolimus-eluting and zotarolimus-eluting coronary stents: 5-Year outcomes from the BIONICS and NIREUS trials</title><author>Zornitzki, L ; Smits, P C ; Love, M P ; Stone, G W ; Kandzari, D E ; Redfors, B ; Ozan, M O ; Konigstein, M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c895-b5e23be8823fa13617ab7bee3c985fff481da152b9f18382d9715f92b66974b33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zornitzki, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smits, P C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Love, M P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stone, G W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kandzari, D E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Redfors, B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ozan, M O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Konigstein, M</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>European heart journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zornitzki, L</au><au>Smits, P C</au><au>Love, M P</au><au>Stone, G W</au><au>Kandzari, D E</au><au>Redfors, B</au><au>Ozan, M O</au><au>Konigstein, M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of ridaforolimus-eluting and zotarolimus-eluting coronary stents: 5-Year outcomes from the BIONICS and NIREUS trials</atitle><jtitle>European heart journal</jtitle><date>2024-10-28</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>45</volume><issue>Supplement_1</issue><issn>0195-668X</issn><eissn>1522-9645</eissn><abstract>Abstract
Introduction
Despite similarities between different modern drug eluting stents (DES), their comparative short and long-term safety and efficacy has generated much interest and yielded conflicting results. The BIONICS and the NIREUS randomized clinical trials showed non-inferiority of the Ridaforolimus eluting stent (RES) compared to the Zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) with respect to 1-year target lesion failure (TLF) and 6-month angiographic late lumen loss.
Aim
To evaluate clinical outcomes between treatment groups over 5 years follow-up
Methods
BIONICS and NIREUS were prospective, randomized, single-blind multicenter trials comparing RES and ZES in patients undergoing PCI. Patients were blinded to treatment assignment and randomized to RES or ZES in a 1:1 fashion in BIONICS, and in 2:1 fashion in NIREUS. Clinical events were assessed during hospital stay, at 30 days, 1 year, and yearly thereafter, up to 5 years. The The primary endpoint in the current study was the 5-year rate of target lesion failure (TLF).
Results
The study population included 2221 patients enrolled in the BIONICS (n=1919) and NIREUS (n=302) studies. Median follow-up was 1822 days (interquartile range 1783 to 1847 days). Mean age was 63.2±10.3 years, and most patients were men (79.7%). Clinical presentation with ACS was similar between groups (38.9% versus 37.9%, RES versus ZES, respectively, p=0.38).
Procedural characteristics were similar for patients treated with RES and ZES. A mean of 1.6±0.9 and 1.5±0.8 stents were implanted in RES and ZES patients, respectively, p=0.08. Post dilatation was performed more frequently in the RES group (63.3% versus 60.1%, p=0.02) and procedure duration was longer in RES versus ZES patients (47.0±31.8 minutes versus 44.6±29.2 minutes, p=0.01). Device success was high in both groups but slightly higher in the ZES group (98.2% versus 99.5% for RES and ZES, respectively, p=0.002) yet with similar procedural success (97.9% versus 97.3%, p=0.49).
At 5 years, the primary endpoint of TLF 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 MI (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 (TVR) 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 two randomized trials, 5-year clinical outcomes were similar between patients undergoing PCI with RES and ZES. These results support the long-term safety and efficacy of RES for the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease.Central illustrationZES vs. RES</abstract><cop>US</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.2405</doi></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0195-668X |
ispartof | European heart journal, 2024-10, Vol.45 (Supplement_1) |
issn | 0195-668X 1522-9645 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_eurheartj_ehae666_2405 |
source | Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current) |
title | Comparison of ridaforolimus-eluting and zotarolimus-eluting coronary stents: 5-Year outcomes from the BIONICS and NIREUS trials |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T19%3A10%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-oup_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20ridaforolimus-eluting%20and%20zotarolimus-eluting%20coronary%20stents:%205-Year%20outcomes%20from%20the%20BIONICS%20and%20NIREUS%20trials&rft.jtitle=European%20heart%20journal&rft.au=Zornitzki,%20L&rft.date=2024-10-28&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=Supplement_1&rft.issn=0195-668X&rft.eissn=1522-9645&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.2405&rft_dat=%3Coup_cross%3E10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.2405%3C/oup_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_oup_id=10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.2405&rfr_iscdi=true |