Comparison of Ridaforolimus-Eluting and Zotarolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents: 5-Year Outcomes from the BIONICS and NIREUS Trials
Lior Zornitzki , MD; Pieter C. Smits , MD, MD; Michael P. Love , MBChB, MD; Gregg W. Stone , MD; David E. Kandzari , MD; Bjorn Redfors , MD PhD; Melek O. Ozan, MS; Maayan Konigstein , MD
BACKGROUND: The BIONICS (BioNIR Ridaforolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent System in Coronary Stenosis) and the NIREUS (BioNIR Ridaforolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [BioNIR] European Angiography Study) randomized clinical trials
showed noninferiority of the ridaforolimus-eluting stent (RES) compared with the zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) with respect to 1-year target-lesion failure and 6-month angiographic late lumen loss. We aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes between
treatment groups over a 5-year follow-up.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Patient-level data from the BIONICS (n=1919) and NIREUS (n=302) were pooled, comparing the outcomes of patients implanted with RES and ZES. The primary end point was the 5-year rate of target-lesion failure. A total
of 2221 patients (63.2±10.3years, 79.7% men) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with RES (n=1159) or ZES (n=1062) were included. Most clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between groups. At 5years, the primary end point of target-lesion failure was similar between treatment groups (12.2% RES versus 11.3% ZES, P=0.52). Rates of TLR (7.6% RES versus 6.8% ZES, P=0.42) target-vessel–related myocardial infarction (4.8% RES versus 4.9% ZES, P=0.95) and stent thrombosis (0.9% RES versus 0.9% ZES, P=0.87) also did not differ between groups. Target-vessel revascularization and cardiac death were higher among the RES group (12.3% versus 9.5% P=0.037, and 3.6% versus 2.2% P=0.042, respectively).
However, after correction for baseline characteristics, there was no significant difference in cardiac death between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In a pooled analysis of 2 randomized trials, 5-year clinical outcomes were similar between patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with RES and ZES. These results support the long-term safety and efficacy of RES for the
treatment of patients with coronary artery disease.
