Author + information
- Michael Maeng, MD, PhDa,∗ (, )
- Evald Høj Christiansen, MD, PhDa,
- Bent Raungaard, MD, PhDb,
- Johnny Kahlert, MScc,
- Christian Juhl Terkelsen, MD, DMScia,
- Steen Dalby Kristensen, MD, CMScia,
- Steen Carstensen, MDa,
- Jens Aarøe, MDb,
- Svend Eggert Jensen, MD, PhDb,
- Anton Boel Villadsen, MDb,
- Jens Flensted Lassen, MD, PhDa,
- Troels Thim, MD, PhDa,
- Ashkan Eftekhari, MD, PhDa,
- Karsten Tange Veien, MDd,
- Knud Nørregaard Hansen, MDd,
- Anders Junker, MDd,
- Hans Erik Bøtker, MD, DMScia,
- Lisette Okkels Jensen, MD, DMScid,
- for the SORT OUT VIII Investigators
- aDepartment of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby, Aarhus, Denmark
- bDepartment of Cardiology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark
- cDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
- dDepartment of Cardiology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
- ↵∗Address for correspondence:
Dr. Michael Maeng, Department of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens Boulevard 99, DK-8200 Aarhus, Denmark.
Objectives The aim of this study was to compare the thin-strut biodegradable-polymer everolimus-eluting platinum-chromium stent (EES) with the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stainless-steel stent (BES).
Background Currently available drug-eluting coronary stents have been refined to reduce the risk for coronary events following implantation.
Methods This randomized, multicenter, all-comers, noninferiority trial was undertaken at 3 sites in western Denmark. Patients with clinical indications for percutaneous coronary intervention were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either EES or BES. The primary endpoint, target lesion failure, was a composite of safety (cardiac death and myocardial infarction not clearly attributable to a nontarget lesion) and efficacy (target lesion revascularization) at 12 months, analyzed using intention-to-treat principles. The trial was powered to assess target lesion failure noninferiority of the EES compared with the BES with a predetermined noninferiority margin of 3%.
Results A total of 1,385 patients were assigned to treatment with EES and 1,369 patients to treatment with BES. The analysis showed that 55 patients (4.0%) assigned to the EES and 60 (4.4%) assigned to the BES met the primary endpoint (absolute risk difference 0.4%; upper limit of 1-sided 95% confidence interval: 1.7%; p < 0.001).
Conclusions At 1-year follow-up, the EES was found to be noninferior to the BES with respect to target lesion failure. (Everolimus-eluting SYNERGY Stent Versus Biolimus-Eluting Biomatrix NeoFlex Stent—SORT-OUT VIII; NCT02093845)
- biodegradable polymer
- drug-eluting stent(s)
- percutaneous coronary intervention
- randomized clinical trial
This trial was initiated and driven solely by the investigators. The study was supported by unrestricted grants from Boston Scientific and Biosensors Interventional Technologies. These companies had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report and had no access to the clinical trial database. The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.
- Received December 17, 2018.
- Accepted December 26, 2018.
This article requires a subscription or purchase to view the full text. If you are a subscriber or member, click Login or the Subscribe link (top menu above) to access this article.