This study assessed the Ultra-thin Strut Bioresorbable Polymer-based Coronary DES (Supraflex) against the Xience, with special emphasis in the cost-benefit ratio.
It included a population of 1435 all-comers from 23 centers in 7 European countries, randomized 1:1 (720 Supraflex and 715 Xience). Primary end point was a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction and clinically justified revascularization with a non-inferiority analysis.
Primary end point occurred in 4.9% of patients in the Supraflex group vs 5.3% in the Xience group (p=0.80), reaching a non-inferiority margin. There were no differences when looking at primary end point components separately such as death or infarction, but there was a reduction of repeat revascularization in the Xience group.
No stent was able to cross the lesion in 2% with Supraflex vs only 0.1% with Xience (p<0.001), which tilted the scales as regards device success rate (97.6% vs 99.5%; p=0.003).
The Xience continues to be the gold standard to compare against when it comes to assessing new devices. However, in this particular case, the Suprafex has a unique advantage: its low cost. While for most countries any DES is around USD 1800, the Supraflex only costs USD 440, which makes it an attractive alternative.
Original title: A Randomized Trial Evaluating an Ultra-Thin Strut Bioresorbable Polymer-Based Coronary Drug-Eluting Stent in An All-Comers Patient Population.
Presenter: Prof. Dr. Patrick.W. Serruys.
Get the latest scientific articles on interventional cardiologySubscribe to our weekly newsletter
We are interested in your opinion. Please, leave your comments, thoughts, questions, etc., below. They will be most welcome.
