We aim to compare Polymer-Free Biolimus-Eluting Stent (PF-BES) with Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting stent (DP-EES) in unselected patients. PF-BES showed a favorable profile in high-bleeding risk patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. Limited data are available on PF-BES compared with second-generation durable polymer-coated drug-eluting stents in patients eligible for standard dual antiplatelet therapy. A total of 848 consecutive patients were enrolled: 306 patients were treated with PF-BES and 542 with DP-EES. Stent performance was tested in a propensity score-matched population and in a Complex Higher-Risk and Indicated Patients (CHIP) subpopulation. A per-lesion analysis on 1,204 lesions (PF-BES = 424 vs DP-EES = 780) was also performed. At a medium follow-up of 18.5 ± 5.0 months, no differences in the matched population were found in terms of major adverse cardiac events (PF-BES 9.0% vs DP-EES 4.5%; p 0.091), myocardial infarction (PF-BES 6.2% vs DP-EES 2.3%; p 0.111), stent restenosis (PF-BES 2.3% vs DP-EES 0.0%; p 0.123), definite or probable stent thrombosis (PF-BES 2.8% vs DP-EES 1.1%; p 0.448). A significant inferior rate of restenosis was observed in the DP-EES arm in the whole (PF-BES 2.3% vs DP-EES 0.6%; p 0.041) and CHIP populations (PF-BES 4.3% vs DP-EES 0.5%; p 0.023), as well as in the per-lesion analysis (DP-EES 0.4% vs PF-BES 1.7%; p 0.039). In conclusion, in a real-world cohort PF-BES performed similarly to DP-EES in terms of restenosis and stent thrombosis in the matched population. Nonetheless, in the whole and CHIP populations, as well as in the per-lesion analysis, restenosis occurrence resulted higher in the PF-BES group.
Absorbable Implants Aged