To Örebro University

AIMS: Randomized clinical trials have consistently demonstrated the non-inferiority of bioabsorbable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) with respect to DES having permanent polymers (PP-DES). To date, the comparative performance of BP- and PP-DES in the real world has not been extensively investigated.

METHODS AND RESULTS: From October 2011 to June 2016, we analysed the outcomes associated with newer generation DES use in Sweden. After stratification according to the type of DES received at the index procedure, a total of 16 504 and 79 106 stents were included in the BP- and PP-DES groups, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier estimates for restenosis at 2 years were 1.2% and 1.4% in BP- and PP-DES groups, respectively. Definite stent thrombosis (ST) was low in both groups (0.5% and 0.7% in BP- and PP-DES groups, respectively). The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for either restenosis or definite ST did not differ between BP- and PP-DES [adjusted HR 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-1.21; P = 0.670 and adjusted HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57-1.09; P = 0.151, respectively]. Similarly, there were no differences in the adjusted risk of all-cause death and myocardial infarction (MI) between the two groups (adjusted HR for all-cause death 1.01, 95% CI 0.82-1.25; P = 0.918 and adjusted HR for MI 1.05, 95% CI 0.93-1.19; P = 0.404).

CONCLUSION: In a large, nationwide, and unselected cohort of patients, percutaneous coronary intervention with BP-DES implantation was not associated with an incremental clinical benefit over PP-DES use at 2 years follow-up.