Ultrathin-strut vs thin-strut drug-eluting stents for multi and single-stent lesions: A lesion-level subgroup analysis of 2 randomized trials
Authors' conclusion
Rates of TLF are similar between ultrathin-strut BP-SES and thin-strut DP-EES in MSL and SSL. The use of ultrathin-strut BP-SES vs thin-strut DP-EES did not prove to be particularly beneficial for the treatment of multistent lesions.
Study context
- Population
- Lesions treated with drug-eluting stents, stratified into multistent lesions (MSL) vs single-stent lesions (SSL)
- Participants
- 3,397 participants · 5,328 lesions
- Comparison
- Ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer Sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) vs thin-strut durable polymer Everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) in multistent vs single-stent lesions
- Primary endpoint
- Target lesion failure (TLF) (lesion-related unclear/cardiac death, MI or revascularization)
- Follow-up
- 24 months
Methodological detailsBIOSCIENCE and BIOSTEMI
- BIOSCIENCE and BIOSTEMI
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
TLF by lesion type (subgroups) · 2 years
BP-SES vs DP-EESSubdistribution hazard ratio (95% CI)P value
MSL
1.13(0.77–1.64)
P = 0.53SSL
0.86(0.62–1.18)
P = 0.35Further findings
| Outcome | BP-SES (SSL) | DP-EES (SSL) | BP-SES (MSL) | DP-EES (MSL) | SHR (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lesion-related MI or revascularization, by lesion typeBP-SES vs DP-EES · SSL | 3.5% | 5.2% | 7.1% | 5.4% | 0.67 (0.46–0.97) | P = 0.036 | |
| Lesion-related MI or revascularization, by lesion typeBP-SES vs DP-EES · MSL | 1.31 (0.85–2.03) | P = 0.216 | |||||
| 0.512Subdistribution hazard ratio (log scale) |
- Lesion-related myocardial infarction (MI) or revascularization, by lesion type: P for interaction = .014
Original publication
Ultrathin-strut vs thin-strut drug-eluting stents for multi and single-stent lesions: A lesion-level subgroup analysis of 2 randomized trials. Am Heart J. Published 14 May 2023. doi:10.
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it