Bioresorbable polymer and durable polymer metallic stents in coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis

References

• Kereiakes DJ, Windecker S, Jobe RL, et al. Clinical outcomes following implantation of thin-strut, bioabsorbable polymer-coated, Everolimus-Eluting SYNERGY stents. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(9):e008152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KEdhi E, Md P Durable versus biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents.
   Google Scholar
• Buiten RA, Ploumen EH, Zocca P, et al. Thin, very thin, or ultrathin strut biodegradable or durable polymer-coated drug-eluting stents: 3-year outcomes of BIO-RESORT. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(17):1650–1660.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gao RL, Xu B, Lansky AJ, et al. A randomised comparison of a novel abluminal groove-filled biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent with a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent: clinical and angiographic follow-up of the TARGET I trial. EuroIntervention. 2013;9(1):75–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu B, Zhang YJ, Sun ZW, et al. Comparison of long-term in-stent vascular response between abluminal groove-filled biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent: 3-year OCT follow-up from the TARGET I trial. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;31(8):1489–1496.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kandzari DE, Koolen JJ, Doros G, et al. Ultrathin bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus thin durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72(25):3287–3297.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meredith IT, Verheye S, Weissman NJ, et al. Six-month IVUS and two-year clinical outcomes in the EVOLVE FHU trial: a randomised evaluation of a novel bioabsorbable polymer-coated, everolimus-eluting stent. EuroIntervention. 2013;9(3):308–315.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buccheri S, Capodanno D. Bioabsorbable stents: only bad news? Eur Heart J Suppl. 2019;21(SupplB):B28–B30.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R, et al. Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions. Circulation. 2007;115(17):2344–2351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raungaard B, Christiansen EH, Bøtker HE, et al. Comparison of durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting and biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting coronary stents in patients with coronary artery disease: 3-year clinical outcomes in the randomized SORT OUT VI trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(3):255–264.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arroyo D, Gendre G, Schukraft S, et al. Comparison of everolimus- and biolimus-eluting coronary stents with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: two-year clinical outcomes of the EVERBIO II trial. Int J Cardiol. 2017;243:121–125.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lefèvre T, Haude M, Neumann FJ, et al. Comparison of a novel biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent with a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent: 5-year outcomes of the randomized BIOFLOW-II trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11(10):995–1002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li C, Guan C, Zhang R, et al. Safety and efficacy of a novel abluminal groove-filled biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent for the treatment of de novo coronary lesions: final five-year results of the patient-level pooled analysis from the TARGET I and TARGET II trials. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;93(S1):818–824.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Windecker S, Haude M, Neumann FJ, et al. Comparison of a novel biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent with a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent: results of the randomized BIOFLOW-II trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(2):e001441.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lansky A, Wijns W, Xu B, et al. Targeted therapy with a localised abluminal groove, low-dose sirolimus-eluting, biodegradable polymer coronary stent (TARGET All Comers): a multicentre, open-label, randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2018;392(10153):1117–1126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orvin K, Carrie D, Richardt G, et al. Comparison of sirolimus eluting stent with bioresorbable polymer to everolimus eluting stent with permanent polymer in bifurcation lesions: results from CENTURY II trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;87(6):1092–1100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaiser C, Galatius S, Jeger R, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stents: main results of the BASEL Stent Kosten-Effektivitäts Trial-PROspective Validation Examination II (BASKET-PROVE II), a randomized, controlled noninferiority 2-year outcome trial. Circulation. 2015;131(1):74–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wijns W, Vrolix M, Verheye S, et al. Randomised study of a bioabsorbable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent: results of the DESSOLVE II trial. EuroIntervention. 2015;10(12):1383–1390.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puricel S, Arroyo D, Corpataux N, et al. Comparison of everolimus- and biolimus-eluting coronary stents with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65(8):791–801.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kufner S, Byrne RA, Valeskini M, et al. Five-year outcomes from a trial of three limus-eluting stents with different polymer coatings in patients with coronary artery disease: final results from the ISAR-TEST 4 randomised trial. EuroIntervention. 2016;11(12):1372–1379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee JY, Park DW, Kim YH, et al. Comparison of biolimus A9-eluting (Nobori) and everolimus-eluting (Promus Element) stents in patients with de novo native long coronary artery lesions: a randomized Long Drug-Eluting Stent V trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7(3):322–329.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Separham A, Sohrabi B, Aslanabadi N, et al. The twelve-month outcome of biolimus eluting stent with biodegradable polymer compared with an everolimus eluting stent with durable polymer. J Cardiovasc Thorac Res. 2011;3(4):113–116.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Xu B, Dou KF, Han YL, et al. A prospective multicenter parallel-controlled trial of TIVOLI biodegradable-polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stent compared to ENDEAVOR zotarolimus-eluting stent for the treatment of coronary artery disease: 8-month angiographic and 2-year clinical follow-up results. Chin Med J (Engl). 2011;124(6):811–816.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pilgrim T, Heg D, Roffi M, et al. Ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent for percutaneous coronary revascularisation (BIOSCIENCE): a randomised, single-blind, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2014;384(9960):2111–2122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pilgrim T, Piccolo R, Heg D, et al. Biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents for primary percutaneous coronary revascularisation of acute myocardial infarction. EuroIntervention. 2016;12(11):e1343–e54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiménez VA, Iñiguez A, Baz JA, et al. A randomized comparison of novel bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent and durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in patients with acute coronary syndromes: the CENTURY II high risk ACS substudy. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2016;17(6):355–361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(12):1215–1221.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zbinden R, Piccolo R, Heg D, et al. Ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent versus durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent for percutaneous coronary revascularization: 2-year results of the BIOSCIENCE Trial. J Am Heart Assoc. 2016;5(3):e003255.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zocca P, Kok MM, Van Der Heijden LC, et al. High bleeding risk patients treated with very thin-strut biodegradable polymer or thin-strut durable polymer drug-eluting stents in the BIO-RESORT Trial. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther. 2018;32(6):567–576.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Natsuaki M, Kozuma K, Morimoto T, et al. Final 3-year outcome of a randomized trial comparing second-generation drug-eluting stents using either biodegradable polymer or durable polymer: NOBORI biolimus-eluting versus XIENCE/PROMUS everolimus-eluting stent trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(10):10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meredith IT, Verheye S, Dubois CL, et al. Primary endpoint results of the EVOLVE trial: a randomized evaluation of a novel bioabsorbable polymer-coated, everolimus-eluting coronary stent. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(15):1362–1370.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kandzari DE, Koolen JJ, Doros G, et al. Ultrathin bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus thin durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents for coronary revascularization: 3-year outcomes from the randomized BIOFLOW V trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13(11):1343–1353.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(5):462–473.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(4):299–307.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bangalore S, Toklu B, Amoroso N, et al. Bare metal stents, durable polymer drug eluting stents, and biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents for coronary artery disease: mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. BMJ. 2013;347(nov08 1):f6625.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhai ZY, Li JX. Comparison of efficacy and safety between ultrathin bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents and thin durable polymer drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Coron Artery Dis. 2019;30(8):590–599.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Picard F, Pighi M, De Hemptinne Q, et al. Comparison of the biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting stent with contemporary drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2019;278:51–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mridha N, Subhaharan D, Niranjan S, et al. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare long-term clinical outcomes of bioabsorbable polymer and durable polymer drug-eluting stents. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2019;5(2):105–113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(1):170.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gilard M, Barragan P, Noryani AAL, et al. 6- versus 24-month dual antiplatelet therapy after implantation of drug-eluting stents in patients nonresistant to aspirin: the randomized, multicenter ITALIC trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65(8):777–786.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• akamura M, Iijima R, Ako J, et al. Dual antiplatelet therapy for 6 versus 18 months after biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stent implantation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(12):1189–1198.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar