Safety and Efficacy of Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Real-World Practice: Insights from the Multicenter Grand-DES Registry

Abstract

Objective. In this study, we sought to compare the efficacy and safety of the Xience Prime/Xience V/Promus EES and Biomatrix/Biomatrix Flex/Nobori BES with resolute integrity/resolute ZES using the grand drug-eluting stent (Grand-DES) registry. Background. Currently, new-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) are used as the standard of care in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. No study has simultaneously compared everolimus-eluting stent (EES), biolimus-eluting stent (BES), and zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES). Methods. Stent-related composite outcomes (target lesion failure) and patient-related composite outcomes were compared in crude and propensity score-matched analysis. Results. Of the 17,286 patients in the Grand-DES group, 5,137, 2,970, and 4,990 patients in the EES, BES, and ZES groups completed a three-year follow-up. In the propensity score-matched cohort, the stent-related outcome (EES vs. BES vs. ZES; 5.9% vs. 6.7% vs. 7.1%, P=0.226) and patient-related outcomes (12.7% vs. 13.5% vs. 14.3%, P=0.232) were similar among the three groups, at 3 years. The rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis (0.6% vs. 0.8% vs. 0.5%, P=0.549) was similar. In the multivariate analysis, chronic kidney disease was the strongest predictor of stent thrombosis (adjusted hazard ratio 3.178; 95% confidence interval 1.621–6.229; P<0.001). Conclusions. In this robust real-world registry with unrestricted use of EES, BES, and ZES, the three stent groups showed comparable safety and efficacy at the 3-year follow-up.