Biolimus-eluting stent with biodegradable polymer versus sirolimus-eluting stent with durable polymer for coronary revascularisation (LEADERS): a randomised non-inferiority trial

  • S Windecker
  • , PWJC (Patrick) Serruys
  • , S Wandel
  • , P Buszman
  • , S Trznadel
  • , A Linke
  • , K Lenk
  • , T Ischinger
  • , V Klauss
  • , F Eberli
  • , R Corti
  • , W (William) Wijns
  • , MC Morice
  • , C (Carlo) di Mario
  • , S Davies
  • , Robert Jan van Geuns
  • , P Eerdmans
  • , Gerrit-anne Es
  • , B Meier
  • , P Juni

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

625 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background A novel stent platform eluting biolimus, a sirolimus analogue, from a biodegradable polymer showed promising results in preliminary studies. We compared the safety and efficacy of a biolimus-eluting stent (with biodegradable polymer) with a sirolimus-eluting stent (with durable polymer). Methods We undertook a multicentre, assessor-blind, non-inferiority study in ten European centres. 1707 patients aged 18 years or older with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes were centrally randomised by a computer-generated allocation sequence to treatment with either biolimus-eluting (n=857) or sirolimus-eluting (n=850) stents. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or clinically-indicated target vessel revascularisation within 9 months. Analysis was by intention to treat. 427 patients were randomly allocated to angiographic follow-up, with in-stent percentage diameter stenosis as principal outcome measure at 9 months. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00389220. Findings We analysed all randomised patients. Biolimus-eluting stents were non-inferior to sirolimus-eluting stents for the primary endpoint at 9 months (79 [9%] patients vs 89 [11%], rate ratio 0 . 88 [95% Cl 0 . 64-1.19], p for non-inferiority=0.003, p for superiority=0 . 39). Frequency of cardiac death (14 [1.6%] vs 21 [2.5%], p for superiority=0.22), myocardial infarction (49 [5.7%] vs 39 [4.6%], p=0.30), and clinically-indicated target vessel revascularisation (38 [4.4%] vs 47 [5.5%], p= 0. 29) were similar for both stent types. 168 (79%) patients in the biolimus-eluting group and 167 (78%) in the sirolimus-eluting group had data for angiographic follow-up available. Biolimus-eluting stents were non-inferior to sirolimus-eluting stents in in-stent percentage diameter stenosis (20.9% vs 23.3%, difference -2.2% [95% Cl -6.0 to 1. 6], p for non-inferiority=0. 001, p for superiority=0.26). Interpretation Our results suggest that a stent eluting biolimus from a biodegradable polymer represents a safe and effective alternative to a stent eluting sirolimus from a durable polymer in patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes. Funding Biosensors Europe SA, Switzerland.
Original languageUndefined/Unknown
Pages (from-to)1163-1173
Number of pages11
JournalLancet (UK)
Volume372
Issue number9644
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2008

Cite this