Intended for healthcare professionals
Original research

Durable versus biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents in all-comers

Abstract

Background Drug-eluting stents (DESs) have become the gold standard of coronary angioplasty since their inception in 2002. Biodegradable polymer DESs (BP-DESs) have been postulated to be superior to durable polymer DESs (DP-DESs) due to their more biocompatible polymer. To date, no study has shown the superiority of one type of polymer compared with the other. We aimed to compare outcomes between a broad range of second-generation DP-DES and BP-DES in an all-comer population.

Methods We analysed data from 2824 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with BP-DES or DP-DES in the Cardio-FR database. Of these, 2079 (1286 DP-DES and 793 BP-DES) met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and completed a 2-year follow-up: The primary outcome was the device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) of cardiac death, non-fatal target vessel myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularisation.

Results Mean age was 67 years, with 75% male. Despite the DP-DES group exhibiting significantly higher rates of risk factors, such as arterial hypertension (63.1% vs 57.5%, p=0.010), a greater average number of stents implanted per patient (1.72±0.92 vs 1.63±0.84, p=0.040), more acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (55.1% vs 50.2%, p=0.031) and a higher rate of post-dilatation (42.2% vs 35.2%, p<0.001), the rate of acute stent thrombosis (ST) was significantly lower than in the BP-DES group (HR 0.240, 95% CI 0.075 to 0.766; p=0.016). This difference remained significant even after adjusting for covariates using a Cox proportional hazards model and performing a win ratio analysis (4.09, 95% CI 1.28 to 13.09; p=0.018). Despite this increased rate of acute ST, there was no difference in DOCE (12.1% vs 14.5%, OR 1.218, 95% CI 0.926 to 1.600; p=0.158) between the two groups up to 2 years.

Conclusion Clinical follow-up up to 2 years shows similar outcomes between BP-DES and DP-DES. The rate of acute ST is higher in patients with BP-DES.

What is already known on this topic

  • Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DESs) were developed to improve long-term safety over durable polymer DESs (DP-DESs), but their clinical advantage remains debated.

What this study adds

  • BP-DES and DP-DES showed similar 2-year clinical outcomes, but BP-DES had a higher risk of acute stent thrombosis.

  • The benefits of BP-DES may be stent-specific rather than due to polymer degradation.

How this study might affect research, practice or policy

  • Stent selection should be based on patient-specific factors, not polymer type alone. The increased early thrombosis risk with BP-DES warrants further research into stent design and thrombogenicity.

Introduction

Drug-eluting stents (DESs) have become the gold standard for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) since their inception in 2002. They have demonstrated their superiority by significantly reducing major adverse cardiac events (MACE), mainly revascularisation rates compared with bare metal stents.1 2 However, the polymer coating on DES, which delivers growth-inhibiting drugs, may trigger hypersensitivity reactions leading to neoatherosclerosis and late stent thrombosis (ST).3 4 Because the polymers on biodegradable polymers DES (BP-DES) are degraded in a few months, it was thought that they might outperform traditional first-generation durable polymer DES (DP-DES). However, second-generation DP-DESs have been improved by incorporating more biocompatible polymers and thinner strut design. These developments have contributed to a substantial decrease in the rates of MACEs, ST and the need for revascularisation.2 5 Thus, while BP-DESs have shown signs of superiority to the first-generation DP-DESs, this remains to be demonstrated when compared with second-generation DP-DESs.6 7

This study aims to compare outcomes between a broad range of second-generation DP-DES and BP-DES in an all-comer population to assess the similarity of outcomes between the two types of devices in a real-world setting.

Methods

Study population

The Cardio-FR registry at the University and Hospital Fribourg includes all patients aged 18+ admitted for PCI who provided written informed consent. It collects data on baseline characteristics, procedural details, in-hospital outcomes and annual clinical follow-ups via phone. The registry has been previously described.8 9 Briefly, stent allocation is randomised using a preset distribution key based on the annual calendar. We included all patients undergoing PCI with second-generation DP-DES or BP-DES from May 2015 to August 2021, with a completed 2-year follow-up. Exclusion criteria were lack of consent, loss to follow-up or hybrid procedures involving different DES types.

The registry complies with the Helsinki Declaration and was approved by the local ethics committee (003-REP-CER-FR) and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04185285).

PCIs and medications

Procedures were performed via femoral or radial artery with a 6 French guiding catheter using standard techniques per guidelines. Intravascular imaging was at the operator’s discretion. Preprocedural antithrombotic therapy included aspirin (250–500 mg IV bolus if not pretreated, 100 mg/day thereafter) and unfractionated heparin (70 UI/kg); cangrelor and tirofiban were used at operator discretion. All patients received a loading dose of 600 mg clopidogrel, 180 mg ticagrelor or 60 mg prasugrel preprocedure or postprocedure. Long-term antiplatelet therapy included aspirin ≥100 mg/day plus either clopidogrel 75 mg, ticagrelor 90 mg two times per day or prasugrel 10 mg for at least 3 months. In patients on oral anticoagulation, aspirin 100 mg was given for at least a week and clopidogrel 75 mg daily for 6 months. Other medications followed standard care. Patients were monitored for 4–12 hours in intermediate care and underwent biomarker and ECG assessments preprocedure and postprocedure.

Study endpoints

The primary endpoint was device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE), including cardiac death, non-fatal target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI) and target lesion revascularisation (TLR). Secondary endpoints included patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE), individual primary endpoints, all-cause mortality and ST incidence. Endpoints followed the Academic Research Consortium-2 (ARC-2) criteria.10 Death was cardiac if the cause was evident, unwitnessed or unknown. TLR was defined as repeat revascularisation within the stent or 5 mm proximal/distal. Target-vessel revascularisation was any revascularisation in the stented vessel, considered ischaemia-driven if associated with a positive functional study, stenosis ≥50% with ischaemic symptoms or stenosis ≥70% regardless of symptoms. Myocardial infarction (MI) was defined as new pathological Q waves (≥0.04 s in ≥2 contiguous leads) or creatine phosphokinase elevation >2× normal with specific elevation of myocardial enzymes, such as the CK-MB isoenzyme or troponin I.

ST was definite with angiographic thrombus confirmation and ischaemic signs or creatine kinase elevation >2× normal within 48 hours. Probable ST included unexplained death within 30 days or MI in the target vessel area without angiographic confirmation. Possible ST included unexplained death beyond 30 days. ST was classified as acute (<24 hours), subacute (24 hours–30 days), late (30 days–1 year) and very late (>1 year).

Statistical analysis

Categorical variables are reported as counts and percentages while continuous variables are reported as mean and SD. Normality was assessed by the computation of Q-Q plots and the Shapiro-Wilk test. Continuous variables were analysed using the Student’s t-test or the Wilcoxon rank-sum test per distribution. Categorical variables were compared using the χ2 or Fisher exact test as appropriate. Survival data were analysed with the log-rank test. The proportional hazard condition was assessed with Kaplan Meier plots as well as ln/ln curves. Primary outcomes were also analysed using win ratio and Cox regression or binary logistic regression as appropriate. All statistical analyses except win ratios were performed using SPSS version 29 (SPSS, Chicago, Illinois, USA) at a 2-tailed significance level of alpha=0.05. Win ratios were performed with R V.4.4.1 (R Core Team, Vienna, Austria) using the WinRatio package11 at a 2-tailed significance level of alpha=0.05.

Results

Population

During the inclusion period, 2824 patients were registered in the Cardio-FR registry. Of these, 2695 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, but 616 patients were lost to follow-up. Consequently, the study population comprised 2079 patients, divided into two groups: 793 patients in the BP-DES group and 1286 patients in the DP-DES group. The flowchart is shown in figure 1. The presentation in terms of acute or chronic coronary syndromes is summarised in online supplemental table S1.

Flowchart presenting the selection process. BP-DES, biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stent; DES, drug-eluting stent; DP-DES, durable polymer drug-eluting stent.

Baseline patient, lesion and procedural characteristics

The DP-DES group exhibited significantly higher rates of arterial hypertension (63.1% vs 57.5%, p=0.010), a greater average number of stents implanted per patient (1.72±0.92 vs 1.63±0.84, p=0.040), a higher proportion of patients with dual lesions (26.5% vs 22.1%, p=0.023) and more frequent use of postdilatation (42.2% vs 35.2%, p<0.001). Conversely, the BP-DES group demonstrated a significantly higher maximal inflation pressure (14.7±3.5 vs 14.3±3.2 ATM, p=0.003), higher rates of predilatation (80.1% vs 76.6%, p=0.026) and a numerical, though not statistically significant, difference in the number of patients who had undergone a previous PCI (29.9% vs 26.1%, p=0.062). The two groups also differed significantly in presentation, with more acute coronary syndrome (ACS) cases (55.1% vs 50.2%, p=0.031) in the DP-DES group and more chronic coronary syndrome cases (47.4% vs 42.7%, p=0.035) in the BP-DES group (table 1).

Table 1
Baseline patient, lesion and procedural characteristics

Studied stent characteristics

Table 2 presents the stents included in this study along with their key characteristics. The BP-DES group primarily comprised the Synergy II BP-DES (70.1%), whereas the DP-DES group mainly consisted of the Resolute Onyx DP-DES (66.2%).

Table 2
Studied stent characteristics and patient distribution across groups

Clinical outcomes

Table 3 and figure 2 illustrate clinical outcomes at 1-month, 1-year, and 2-year follow-up. At 1 month, treatment with BP-DES was associated with significantly higher rates of MI (7.6% vs 5.0%, p=0.015), a greater need for ischaemia-driven revascularisation (3.7% vs 2.0%, p=0.024) and a higher incidence of definite/probable ST (1.8% vs 0.8%, p=0.040). However, these differences were no longer observed at longer follow-up, and the occurrence of all events was similar between the two groups up to 2 years: the overall DOCE rate was comparable between the BP-DES and DP-DES groups (12.1% vs 14.5%, p=0.132), as was the incidence of TLR (6.3% vs 7.7%, p=0.238).

Table 3
Clinical outcomes

Kaplan-Meier survival free from DOCE (panel A) and POCE (panel B) at 2-year follow-up. BP-DES, biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stent; DOCE, device-oriented composite endpoint; DP-DES, durable polymer drug-eluting stent; POCE, patient-oriented composite endpoint.

A subanalysis of the timing of ST revealed a notably higher incidence of acute ST in the BP-DES group (1.3% vs 0.3%, p=0.010) online supplemental table S2. The antiplatelet status, lesion and patient characteristics, as well as the use of intravascular imaging were similar between groups.

Multivariate analyses to adjust for potential confounders were also conducted. A Cox regression confirmed the significantly higher rate of acute ST (HR 0.240, 95% CI 0.075 to 0.766; p=0.016) in the BP-DES group but a similar rate of ST (HR 0.520, 95% CI 0.259 to 1.043; p=0.065) between the two groups at 2-year follow-up. Similarly, a binary logistic regression corroborated the comparable incidence of DOCE (OR 1.218, 95% CI 0.926 to 1.600; p=0.158) and POCE (OR 1.043, 95% CI 0.855 to 1.274; p=0.677) between the two groups at 2-year follow-up(online supplemental table S3).

Finally, an exploratory win ratio analysis was performed, further supporting the higher rate of acute ST (win ratio 4.09, 95% CI 1.28 to 13.09; p=0.018) in the BP-DES group, while showing a similar incidence of ST (win ratio 1.86, 95% CI 0.93 to 3.73; p=0.081) between the two groups at 2-year follow-up.

Discussion

In this registry-based study, we observed no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the two groups after 2 years. There was, however, an increased rate of acute ST in the BP-DES group.

The overall event rates reported in this study were comparable to those of similar studies that included an all-comer population and a real-world setting approach, such as those by Zanchin et al12 or the BIOSCIENCE (A Randomized Comparison of a Sirolimus-eluting Stent With Biodegradable Polymer Versus an Everolimus-eluting Stent With a Durable Polymer for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization)13 randomised controlled trial (RCT). However, they remained higher than in the registry-based study by De Araujo and colleagues,14 which applied propensity score matching to select a population with more favourable risk factors.

No net clinical benefit of BP-DES over DP-DES

This study found no significant difference in cumulative endpoints between the two groups. The BP-DES cohort consisted of 70% Synergy II, 20% Orsiro and 8% Biomatrix Alpha. This distribution may have influenced the results, as the most favourable studies supporting BP-DES over DP-DES were conducted with Orsiro.

Indeed, large-scale RCTs with 5-year follow-ups, such as BIOSCIENCE (A Randomized Comparison of a Sirolimus-eluting Stent With Biodegradable Polymer Versus an Everolimus-eluting Stent With a Durable Polymer for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization),13 BIO-RESORT (Comparison of Biodegradable Polymer and Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents in an All Comers Population),15 and COMPARE II (Abluminal biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent),16 have shown no significant differences between BP-DES and DP-DES. Similarly, the HOST REDUCE POLYTECH ACS RCT (Harmonizing Optimal Strategy for Treatment of coronary artery diseases--comparison of REDUCtion of prasugrEl dose or POLYmer TECHnology in ACS patients)17 reported comparable patient-oriented outcomes between DP-DES and BP-DES after 3 years in an ACS population. However, treatment with BP-DES was associated with a higher risk of device-oriented endpoints (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.95; p=0.020), primarily due to an increased rate of TLR. This heightened risk was attributed to polymer degradation, as the higher incidence of device-oriented endpoints was only observed during the polymer degradation phase (8–16 months).

Conversely, BIOFLOW V (Ultrathin, bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus thin, durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation)18 reported significantly lower rates of TVMI (6.6% vs 10.3%, p=0.015) and late/very late ST (0.3% vs 1.6%, p=0.021) in the BP-DES group compared with the Xience DP-DES. Similarly, the BIOSTEMI (Biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction)19 trial also noted a significant reduction in target lesion failure (TLF) in favour of BP-DES versus DP-DES (∆−3%; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.95) in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Both studies were conducted with the Orsiro BP-DES.

A 2017 meta-analysis by El-Hayek et al,7 including 20 000 patients over 26 months, as well as longer 5-year follow-up meta-analyses by Kobayashi et al20 and Lou et al,21 found no significant differences between BP-DES and DP-DES. However, Zhu et al22 and Monjur et al23 reported a significant reduction in MI risk (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.98) and TLF risk (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98; p=0.037) in the Orsiro BP-DES group. Furthermore, a network meta-analysis by Taglieri et al24 involving 99 039 patients identified the Orsiro BP-DES as potentially the DES with the lowest DOCE after 5 years, while reporting no significant differences between other BP-DES and DP-DES.

These findings suggest that the overall benefits of BP-DES may be primarily driven by Orsiro and that the predominance of Synergy II in the BP-DES cohort analysed in this study may have influenced the observed results. However, overall, the differences between the two DES classes remain marginal.

Increased early ST with BP-DES compared with DP-DES

Early ST is influenced by multiple factors, including patient characteristics (eg, diabetes mellitus), clinical setting (eg, ACS), procedural factors (eg, malapposition, malexpansion, stent length) and stent-related properties.25 The use of BP-DES has been theoretically associated with an increased prothrombotic risk during the polymer resorption phase, due to its proinflammatory properties. Indeed, experimental models have shown that conformal permanent polymer stents exhibit lower platelet accumulation under single antiplatelet therapy compared with abluminal bioabsorbable polymer-coated stents such as Synergy, which was the most commonly used BP-DES in this study.26 27

Consistently, despite the DP-DES group having a higher proportion of ACS cases and more stents per patient, the rate of acute ST was lower in the DP-DES group than in the BP-DES group in our study. The literature remains divided on this matter, with some studies reporting higher acute ST rates with BP-DES like the one by Zanchin et al12 (1.2% vs 0.3%; p=0.03) and others reporting higher unspecified ST rates with BP-DES like the MAUDE registry28 (10.0% vs 2.6%, p<0.001), while others, like the BIOFLOW V18 study reported lower late/very late ST rates (0.3% vs 1.6%, p=0.021) with BP-DES or the study from de Araujo and colleagues14 which reported equal unspecified ST rates between DP-DES and BP-DES (1.4% vs 1.4% p=1.000).

A possible explanation for this discrepancy is the specific stent used. In this registry, the most frequently implanted BP-DES was Synergy II, which may exhibit prothrombotic characteristics compared with other BP-DES, such as Orsiro18 or Inspiron.14 Supporting this hypothesis, an analysis of Synergy stent data from the POEM (Performance of Bioresorbable Polymer-Coated Everolimus-Eluting Synergy Stent in Patients at HBR Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization Followed by 1-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy) trial,29 which evaluated 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy discontinuation, reported a higher ST rate (0.94%) (14) than comparable DP-DES cohorts (eg, 0.3% in Xience 28).30 This may be attributable to the proinflammatory degradation of Synergy’s polymer or from the more thrombogenic abluminal coating design.31

Finally, there is no reason to assume there was any difference in the implantation technique between the two groups in this study, and the statistical analysis revealed comparable antiaggregation status and lesion and patient characteristics in ST patients. It should be noted that STs are not systematically confirmed by intravascular imaging and that this significant difference in acute ST rates could be a chance finding resulting from the number of analyses from this current study. In any case, these findings should be interpreted with caution, as neither the other trials reporting ST rates12 14 18 28 nor this study were sufficiently powered to detect such rare events effectively.

Study limitations

This open-label single centre study is based on a registry that uses a non-randomised population. However, stent allocation was determined randomly and prospectively, which helped mitigate methodological biases. Nevertheless, differences in baseline characteristics between the groups persist, and this issue has been rigorously addressed in our analyses to minimise the impact on internal validity.

Moreover, the broad range of DES included in this study may also influence results due to other stent factors than polymer, such as differences in strut thickness, polymer degradation kinetics or antiproliferative drugs. The lack of an independent event adjudication committee also threatens internal validity.

Finally, while the study size is sufficient for the analysis of composite endpoints, it remains limited for detecting rare events, such as ST. Low rates of events also severely restrain multivariate analyses by restricting the number of covariables of the model. As such, the differences observed in the analysis of ST may still reflect a type II error, even if a similar study arrives at the same conclusions. Only meta-analyses and large registries (over 15 000 patients) could specifically address this question.

Conclusion

Clinical follow-up up to 2 years for patients treated with BP-DES or DP-DES shows similar outcomes. While the rate of acute ST remains low across both groups, it appears to be slightly higher in patients with BP-DES.

  • Contributors: All authors have contributed significantly to this study. TW conducted the study, performed the statistical analyses, wrote the first draft and prepared the final manuscript incorporating the reviewers’ comments. SP participated in data acquisition, served as the mentor for statistical analyses and provided constructive feedback on manuscript drafts. AW contributed to data analysis and provided critical revisions to the manuscript. PM, AD and MT actively participated in data acquisition and provided valuable feedback on the manuscript. SC conceived the study, supervised the research, reviewed the first draft and provided critical revisions. He is the guarantor of the study. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

  • Funding: The Fonds Scientifique Cardiovasculaire, Fribourg, Switzerland, funded the study.

  • Competing interests: None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material: This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication:
Ethics approval:

This study involves human participants and was approved by the Cardio-FR registry complied with the Helsinki Declaration and was approved by the local ethics committee (003-REP-CER-FR). The registry is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04185285. Participants gave informed consent to participate in the study before taking part.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the cathlab of the University and Hospital Fribourg for their invaluable support. The authors are indebted to Yannick Faucherre and Estelle Boute for sharing their tremendous logistic expertise.

  1. close Piccolo R, Bonaa KH, Efthimiou O, et al. Drug-eluting or bare-metal stents for percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. The Lancet 2019; 393:2503–10.
  2. close Madhavan MV, Kirtane AJ, Redfors B, et al. Stent-Related Adverse Events >1 Year After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020; 75:590–604.
  3. close Nakazawa G, Otsuka F, Nakano M, et al. The pathology of neoatherosclerosis in human coronary implants bare-metal and drug-eluting stents. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 57:1314–22.
  4. close Nebeker JR, Virmani R, Bennett CL, et al. Hypersensitivity cases associated with drug-eluting coronary stents: a review of available cases from the Research on Adverse Drug Events and Reports (RADAR) project. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 47:175–81.
  5. close Palmerini T, Biondi-Zoccai G, Della Riva D, et al. Clinical outcomes with bioabsorbable polymer- versus durable polymer-based drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 63:299–307.
  6. close Serruys PW, Farooq V, Kalesan B, et al. Improved Safety and Reduction in Stent Thrombosis Associated With Biodegradable Polymer-Based Biolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Durable Polymer-Based Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions 2013; 6:777–89.
  7. close El-Hayek G, Bangalore S, Casso Dominguez A, et al. Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials Comparing Biodegradable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stent to Second-Generation Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2017; 10:462–73.
  8. close Schukraft S, Huwyler T, Ottiger-Mankaka C, et al. Bleeding Risk Profile in Patients on Oral Anticoagulation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: A Prospective 24 Months Cohort Study. Front Cardiovasc Med 2021; 8.
  9. close Volet C, Puricel S, Cook ST, et al. Proximal optimization technique and percutaneous coronary intervention for left main disease: POTENTIAL-LM. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2024; 103:417–24.
  10. close Garcia-Garcia HM, McFadden EP, Farb A, et al. Standardized End Point Definitions for Coronary Intervention Trials: The Academic Research Consortium-2 Consensus Document. Circulation 2018; 137:2635–50.
  11. close Duarte K, Ferreira JP. WinRatio: win ratio for prioritized outcomes and 95% confidence interval. R package version 1.0. 2020;
    Available: here
  12. close Zanchin C, Ueki Y, Zanchin T, et al. Everolimus-Eluting Biodegradable Polymer Versus Everolimus-Eluting Durable Polymer Stent for Coronary Revascularization in Routine Clinical Practice. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2019; 12:1665–75.
  13. close Pilgrim T, Piccolo R, Heg D, et al. Ultrathin-strut, biodegradable-polymer, sirolimus-eluting stents versus thin-strut, durable-polymer, everolimus-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary revascularisation: 5-year outcomes of the BIOSCIENCE randomised trial. The Lancet 2018; 392:737–46.
  14. close Araujo GN, Machado GP, Moura M, et al. Real-World Assessment of an Ultrathin Strut, Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Submitted to Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (INSTEMI Registry). Arq Bras Cardiol 2023; 120.
  15. close Ploumen EH, Pinxterhuis TH, Buiten RA, et al. Final 5-Year Report of the Randomized BIO-RESORT Trial Comparing 3 Contemporary Drug-Eluting Stents in All-Comers. J Am Heart Assoc 2022; 11.
  16. close Vlachojannis GJ, Smits PC, Hofma SH, et al. Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: Final 5-Year Report From the COMPARE II Trial (Abluminal Biodegradable Polymer Biolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent). JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2017; 10:1215–21.
  17. close Kang J, Hwang D, Park KW, et al. Durable-polymer versus biodegradable-polymer drug-eluting stents in acute coronary syndromes: three-year outcomes of the HOST REDUCE POLYTECH RCT Trial. EuroIntervention 2024; 20:e750–9.
  18. close Kandzari DE, Koolen JJ, Doros G, et al. Ultrathin Bioresorbable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents: BIOFLOW V Final 5-Year Outcomes. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2022; 15:1852–60.
  19. close Iglesias JF, Roffi M, Losdat S, et al. Long-term outcomes with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 5-year follow-up of the BIOSTEMI randomised superiority trial. The Lancet 2023; 402:1979–90.
  20. close Kobayashi T, Sotomi Y, Suzuki S, et al. Five-year clinical efficacy and safety of contemporary thin-strut biodegradable polymer versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 9 randomized controlled trials. Cardiovasc Interv and Ther 2020; 35:250–8.
  21. close Lou Y, Yu Y, Xi Z, et al. Five-Year Outcomes of Biodegradable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Second-Generation Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents: a Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther 2019; 33:557–66.
  22. close Zhu P, Zhou X, Zhang C, et al. Safety and efficacy of ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2018; 18.
  23. close Monjur MR, Said CF, Bamford P, et al. Ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents: a meta-analysis. Open Heart 2020; 7.
  24. close Taglieri N, Bruno AG, Ghetti G, et al. Target Lesion Failure With Current Drug-Eluting Stents: Evidence From a Comprehensive Network Meta-Analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2020; 13:2868–78.
  25. close Cook S, Windecker S. Early stent thrombosis: past, present, and future. Circulation 2009; 119:657–9.
  26. close Sato Y, Jinnouchi H, Kolodgie FD, et al. Acute thrombogenicity of fluoropolymer coated stents versus competitive drug-eluting stents under single antiplatelet therapy. Int J Cardiol 2021; 338:42–9.
  27. close Jinnouchi H, Kutyna M, Torii S, et al. Comparison of acute thrombogenicity and albumin adsorption in three different durable polymer coronary drug-eluting stents. EuroIntervention 2021; 17:248–56.
  28. close Khan AR, Tripathi A, Farid TA, et al. Stent thrombosis with bioabsorbable polymer drug-eluting stents: insights from the Food and Drug Administration database. Coron Artery Dis 2017; 28:564–9.
  29. close Pivato CA, Reimers B, Testa L, et al. One-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Bioresorbable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents in High Bleeding Risk Patients. J Am Heart Assoc 2022; 11.
  30. close Mehran R, Cao D, Angiolillo DJ, et al. 3- or 1-Month DAPT in Patients at High Bleeding Risk Undergoing Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2021; 14:1870–83.
  31. close Bangalore S. Acute Thrombogenicity of SYNERGY Drug-Eluting Stent: The 'Bare Metal' Concern? JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2019; 12:1676–8.

  • Received: 4 December 2024
  • Accepted: 6 February 2025
  • First published: 3 March 2025