2. Hôpital de la Tour, Geneva, Switzerland
3. Biosensors Europe, Morges, Switzerland
4. Cardiovascular Department, Ferrarotto Hospital, University of Catania, and ETNA Foundation, Catania, Italy
5. Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
6. Montreal Heart Institute, Department of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec, Canada
7. The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and the Clinical Trials Center, Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, New York, USA
8. Division of Cardiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
9. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA; Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
10. Ramsay Générale de Santé - Institut Cardiovasculaire Paris Sud, Massy, France
As a public service to our readership, this article - peer reviewed by the Editors of EuroIntervention and external reviewers - has been published immediately upon acceptance as it was received in the last round of revision. The content of this article is the responsibility of the authors.
Please note that supplementary movies are not available online at this stage. Once a paper is published in its edited and formatted form, it will be accompanied online by any supplementary movies.
To read the full content of this article, please log in to download the PDF.
Methods and results: Participants from the LEADERS FREE (LF) and LEADERS FREE (LFII) studies were pooled into one dataset. Participants were treated with 30 days of DAPT. The primary safety (composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis) and effectiveness (target-lesion revascularization) endpoints were compared between DCS and BMS in the subgroup of patients satisfying the ARC-HBR definition using propensity-score modelling.
From the 3,635 participants included in the combined LF & LFII dataset, 2,898 (79.7%) satisfied the ARC-HBR criteria (DCS: 1,923; BMS: 975). The primary safety endpoint occurred in 184 (9.8%) and in 132 (13.8%) participants in the DCS and BMS groups, respectively (adjusted HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.57-0.91; p=0.006). The risk of the primary effectiveness endpoint was also significantly lower with DCS (6.2%) vs. BMS (8.8%) (adjusted HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.52-0.94; p=0.016). Safety and effectiveness of DCS vs. BMS were consistent according to ARC-HBR status (p interaction = 0.206 and 0.260, respectively).
Conclusions: DCS are safer and more effective than BMS in an ARC-defined HBR population.
Sign in to read and download the full articleForgot your password?
Join us for free and access thousands of articles from EuroIntervention, as well as presentations, videos, cases from PCRonline.com