The Official Journal of EuroPCR and the European Association of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions (EAPCI)


A randomised comparison of healing response between the BuMA Supreme stent and the XIENCE stent at one-month and two-month follow-up: PIONEER-II OCT randomised controlled trial

EuroIntervention 2018;14:e1306-e1315 published online August 2018. DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00461

1. Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 2. St. Luke’s International Hospital, Tokyo, Japan; 3. The General Hospital of Chinese People’s Liberation Army, Beijing, China; 4. Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; 5. Shanghai 9th People’s Hospital, Shanghai, China; 6. Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical College, Guizhou Sheng, China; 7. Wuhan Asia Heart Hospital, Wuhan, China; 8. Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Zhejiang, China; 9. 2nd Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China; 10. 1st Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Liaoning Sheng, China; 11. 1st Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University, Shaanxi Sheng, China; 12. Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom; 13. Cardialysis, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Aims: The aim of this study was to compare the strut coverage of the XIENCE stent with that of the BuMA Supreme sirolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium stent, which has a shorter drug elution, on optical coherence tomography (OCT) one or two months after implantation.

Methods and results: The PIONEER-II OCT trial was a multicentre, two-arm randomised trial, which comprised two cohorts: cohort-1 underwent an OCT imaging one month after coronary intervention (BuMA: 16 patients with 18 lesions, XIENCE: 15 patients with 17 lesions), whereas cohort-2 underwent OCT at two months (BuMA: 21 patients with 21 lesions, XIENCE: 23 patients with 28 lesions). The primary hypotheses were non-inferiority of the BuMA stent to the XIENCE stent in percent strut coverage at one month (cohort-1) or two months (cohort-2). In cohort-1, the BuMA stent was non-inferior to the XIENCE stent in terms of the strut coverage (83.8±10.4% for BuMA vs. 73.0±17.5% for XIENCE, pfor noninferiority <0.001), and was also significantly higher than the XIENCE (pfor superiority 0.037). In cohort-2, the BuMA stent was non-inferior to the XIENCE stent in OCT strut coverage (80.3±18.3% vs. 73.3±21.3%, pfor noninferiority 0.006, pfor superiority 0.24). Healing scores showed better healing in the BuMA stent in cohort-1 (32.36±21.59 vs. 54.88±34.65, p=0.027), whereas there was comparable healing between the BuMA and XIENCE stents in cohort-2 (39.86±37.77 vs. 53.75±42.84, p=0.25).

Conclusions: The BuMA Supreme had a faster coverage than the XIENCE at one month, presumably due to faster and shorter sirolimus elution. The difference in tissue coverage became less evident at two months. Identifier: NCT02747329.

Sign in to read and download the full article

Forgot your password?
No account yet? Sign up for free!
Create my pcr account

Join us for free and access thousands of articles from EuroIntervention, as well as presentations, videos, cases from

Read next article
Prevalence of neoatherosclerosis in sirolimus-eluting stents in a very late phase after implantation

Latest news