0 Datasets
0 Files
Get instant academic access to this publication’s datasets.
Yes. After verification, you can browse and download datasets at no cost. Some premium assets may require author approval.
Files are stored on encrypted storage. Access is restricted to verified users and all downloads are logged.
Yes, message the author after sign-up to request supplementary files or replication code.
Join 50,000+ researchers worldwide. Get instant access to peer-reviewed datasets, advanced analytics, and global collaboration tools.
✓ Immediate verification • ✓ Free institutional access • ✓ Global collaborationJoin our academic network to download verified datasets and collaborate with researchers worldwide.
Get Free AccessBackground 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% CI 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% CI −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.
Stephan Windecker, Patrick W. Serruys, Simon Wandel, Paweł Buszman, Stanisław Trznadel, Axel Linke, Karsten Lenk, Thomas Ischinger, Volker Klauß, Franz R. Eberli, Roberto Corti, William Wijns, Marie‐Claude Morice, Carlo Di Mario, Simon Davies, Robert‐Jan van Geuns, Pedro Eerdmans, Gerrit-Anne van Es, Bernhard Meier, Peter Jüni (2008). Biolimus-eluting stent with biodegradable polymer versus sirolimus-eluting stent with durable polymer for coronary revascularisation (LEADERS): a randomised non-inferiority trial. The Lancet, 372(9644), pp. 1163-1173, DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(08)61244-1.
Datasets shared by verified academics with rich metadata and previews.
Authors choose access levels; downloads are logged for transparency.
Students and faculty get instant access after verification.
Type
Article
Year
2008
Authors
20
Datasets
0
Total Files
0
Language
English
Journal
The Lancet
DOI
10.1016/s0140-6736(08)61244-1
Access datasets from 50,000+ researchers worldwide with institutional verification.
Get Free Access