Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Do ultrathin strut bare-metal stents with passive coating improve efficacy in large coronary arteries? Insights from the randomized, multicenter BASKET-PROVE trials

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Phenome-wide association analysis of LDL-cholesterol lowering genetic variants in PCSK9

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Longitudinal study of electrical, functional and structural remodelling in an equine model of atrial fibrillation

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Next-generation sequencing using microfluidic PCR enrichment for molecular autopsy

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Diastolic function recommendations: Are we too relaxed when reporting myocardial relaxation?

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Level of Physical Activity, Left Ventricular Mass, Hypertension, and Prognosis

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Early Systolic Lengthening in Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Novel Predictor of Cardiovascular Events

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

BACKGROUND: The new generation thinner-strut silicon carbide (SiC) coated cobalt chromium (CoCr) bare-metal stents (BMS) are designed to accelerate rapid endothelialisation and reduce thrombogenicity when implanted in coronary arteries. However, smaller studies suggest higher rates of symptomatic restenosis in patients receiving the newer generation BMS. We investigated the efficacy of a newer generation ultrathin strut silicon-carbide coated cobalt-chromium (CoCr) BMS (SCC-BMS) as compared to an older thin-strut uncoated CoCr BMS (UC-BMS) in patients presenting with coronary artery disease requiring stenting of large vessels (≥3.0 mm).

METHODS: All patients randomized to SCC- (n = 761) or UC-BMS (n = 765) in the two BASKET-PROVE trials were included. Design, patients, interventions and follow-up were similar between trials except differing regimens of dual antiplatelet therapy. The primary endpoint was clinically driven target-vessel revascularization within 24 months. Safety endpoints of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST) were also assessed. We used inverse probability weighted proportional hazards Cox regressions adjusting for known confounders.

RESULTS: Demographics, clinical presentation, and risk factors were comparable between the groups, but patients receiving SCC-BMS underwent less complex procedures. The risk for clinically driven TVR was increased om the SCC-BMS group compared to the UC-BMS group (cumulative incidence, 10.6% vs. 8.4%; adjusted relative hazard [HR], 1.49 [95% CI, 1.05-2.10]). No differences in safety endpoints were detected, cardiac death (1.6% vs. 2.8%; HR, 0.62 [CI, 0.30-1.27]), non-fatal MI (3.2% vs. 2.5%; HR, 1.56 [CI, 0.83-2.91]), and definite/probable ST (0.8% vs. 1.1%; HR, 1.17 [CI, 0.39-3.50]). Differences in strut thickness between the two stents did not explain the association between stent type and clinically driven TVR.

CONCLUSIONS: In patients requiring stenting of large coronary arteries, use of the newer generation SCC-BMS was associated with a higher risk of clinically driven repeat revascularization compared to the UC-BMS with no signs of an offsetting safety benefit.

Original languageEnglish
JournalBMC Cardiovascular Disorders
Volume19
Issue number1
Pages (from-to)226
ISSN1471-2261
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 16 Oct 2019

ID: 59127863