REabsorbable vs. DUrable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents in All-Comer PatiEnts: the REDUCE registry. Issue 4 (June 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Piccirillo, Francesco; Caiazzo, Gianluca; Miglionico, Marco; Nusca, Annunziata; Melfi, Rosetta; Gallo, Paolo; Ricottini, Elisabetta; De Michele, Mario; Golino, Luca; Manganiello, Vincenzo; Fattore, Luciano; Mangiacapra, Fabio; Di Sciascio, Germano
• Is Part Of: Coronary artery disease. Volume 32:Issue 4(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-06
• Subjects: angioplasty -- coronary heart disease -- in-stent restenosis -- major adverse clinical events -- percutaneous coronary intervention -- stent thrombosis; Coronary heart disease -- Periodicals; Coronary Disease -- Indexes; Coronary Disease -- Periodicals; 616.123005
• DOI: 10.1097/MCA.0000000000000993
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0954-6928

Abstract

Abstract : Background: While the superiority of reabsorbable-polymer drug-eluting stents (RP-DES) over bare-metal stents and first-generation durable-polymer (DP)-DES has been largely established, their advantage compared with new-generation DP-DES is still controversial. This study aimed was to compare clinical outcomes of all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with new generation DP-DES or RP-DES implantation. Methods: We prospectively enrolled 679 consecutive patients treated with PCI with RP-DES or DP-DES. The primary endpoint was the 1-year incidence of major adverse clinical events (MACE), a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Target lesion revascularization (TLR) and definite stent thrombosis were also recorded. Results: A total of 439 (64.6%) received RP-DES and 240 (36.4%) received DP-DES. No significant difference in the incidence of MACE (5.9 vs. 4.9%; hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.61–2.49; P = 0.569), death (1.8 vs. 1.7%; hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.33–3.64; P = 0.882), MI (2.3 vs. 2.1%; hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.36–3.08; P = 0.927), TVR (2.3 vs. 1.3%; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 0.47–6.20; P = 0.418), TLR (1.4 vs. 0.4%; hazard ratio, 3.06; 95% CI, 0.37–25.40; P = 0.301), and definite stent thrombosis (0.5 vs. 0.4%; hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.10–12.10; P = 0.942) was observed between RP-DES and DP-DES patients at 1-year follow-up. These results were confirmed in a propensity score-matched cohort ( n = 134 per group). Conclusion: In our registry including a real-world population of all-comer patients undergoing PCI, RP-DES, or durable polymer-DES showed similar efficacy and safety at a 1-year follow-up.