Long‐term safety of ultrathin bioabsorbable‐polymer sirolimus‐eluting stents versus thin durable‐polymer drug‐eluting stents in acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundBecause of the advancement of bioabsorbable polymers and thinner struts, bioabsorbable‐polymer sirolimus‐eluting stents (BP‐SES) with ultrathin struts may be related to superior performance when compared to durable‐polymer drug‐eluting stents (DP‐DES) with thin struts. Nonetheless, the long‐term safety of ultrathin BP‐SES in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains unknown.MethodsWe sought to assess the long‐term safety of ultrathin BP‐SES in ACS patients, conducting a thorough meta‐analysis of all relevant trials drawing a comparison between ultrathin BP‐SES and contemporary thin DP‐DES. Target lesion failure (TLF), which includes cardiac death (CD), target‐vessel myocardial infarction (TV‐MI), and clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD‐TLR) was considered the primary endpoint. Multiple databases comprising Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Pubmed were all thoroughly searched.ResultsThere were seven randomized controlled trials included in our study with 7522 randomized patients with ACS (BP‐SES = 3888, DP‐DES = 3634). TLF occurred in 371 (9.5% in BP‐SES) and 393 (10.8% in DP‐DES) patients, respectively, across a 40.7‐month weighted mean follow‐up, with no statistically significant group differences (risk ratio [RR]: 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73–1.04; p = .12). Furthermore, no significant differences in cardiac death (RR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.68–1.35; p = .81), TV‐MI (RR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.36–1.10; p = .10) and CD‐TLR (RR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.46–1.29; p = .32) were detected between two groups.ConclusionDuring a follow‐up of 40.7 months, ultrathin BP‐SES and thin DP‐DES had a comparable risk of TLF and its individual components (CD, TV‐MI, and CD‐TLR), indicating that ultrathin BP‐SES held at least the same safety and efficiency as thin DP‐DES presented in patients with ACS.