The twelve-month outcomes of a biolimus eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer compared with a sirolimus eluting stent with a durable polymer

This study reports the 12-month clinical outcomes of the LEADERS clinical trial which compared a biolimus eluting stent with a biodegradable polymer (BES) to a sirolimus eluting stent with a durable polymer (SES).

Long-term clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease (LEADERS): 4 year follow-up of a randomised non-inferiority trial

Background The effectiveness of durable polymer drug-eluting stents comes at the expense of delayed arterial healing and subsequent late adverse events such as stent thrombosis (ST). We report the 4 year follow-up of an assessment of biodegradable polymer-based drug-eluting stents, which aim to improve safety by avoiding the persistent inflammatory stimulus of durable polymers. Methods We did a multicentre, assessor-masked, non-inferiority trial. Between Nov 27, 2006, and May 18, 2007, patients aged 18 years or older with coronary artery disease were randomly allocated with a computer-generated sequence to receive either biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BES) or durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (SES; 1:1 ratio). The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or clinically-indicated target vessel revascularisation (TVR); patients were followed-up for 4 years. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00389220. Findings 1707 patients with 2472 lesions were randomly allocated to receive either biodegradable polymer BES (857 patients, 1257 lesions) or durable polymer SES (850 patients, 1215 lesions). At 4 years, biodegradable polymer BES were non-inferior to durable polymer SES for the primary endpoint: 160 (18·7%) patients versus 192 (22·6%) patients (rate ratios [RR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·66–1·00, p for non-inferiority <0·0001, p for superiority=0·050). The RR of definite ST was 0·62 (0·35–1·08, p=0·09), which was largely attributable to a lower risk of very late definite ST between years 1 and 4 in the BES group than in the SES group (RR 0·20, 95% CI 0·06–0·67, p=0·004). Conversely, the RR of definite ST during the first year was 0·99 (0·51–1·95; p=0·98) and the test for interaction between RR of definite ST and time was positive (pinteraction=0·017). We recorded an interaction with time for events associated with ST but not for other events. For primary endpoint events associated with ST, the RR was 0·86 (0·41–1·80) during the first year and 0·17 (0·04–0·78) during subsequent years (pinteraction=0·049). Interpretation Biodegradable polymer BES are non-inferior to durable polymer SES and, by reducing the risk of cardiac events associated with very late ST, might improve long-term clinical outcomes for up to 4 years compared with durable polymer SES. Funding Biosensors Europe SA, Switzerland.

The three year follow-up of the randomised "all-comers" trial of a biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent versus permanent polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (LEADERS)

Aims: The current study reports clinical outcomes at three year follow-up of the LEADERS clinical trial which was the first all-comers trial comparing a new generation biodegradable polymer biolimus drug-eluting stent (BES) with the first generation permanent polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (SES). Methods and results: One thousand seven hundred and seven patients were randomised to unrestricted use of BES (n=857) or SES (n=850) in an all-comers population. Three year follow-up was available in 95% of the patients, 812 treated with BES and 809 treated with SES. At three years, BES remains non-inferior to SES for the primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically-indicated target vessel revascularisation (CI-TVR) (BES 15.7% versus SES 19%; HR 0.82 CI 0.65-1.03; p=0.09). The MACE Kaplan Meier event curves increasingly diverge with the difference in events increasing from 1.4% to 2.4% and 3.3% at 1, 2 and 3 years, respectively in favour of BES. The rate of cardiac death was non-significantly lower 4.2% versus 5.2% (HR=0.81 CI 0.52-1.26; p=0.34) and the rate of myocardial infarction was equivalent 7.2% versus 7.1% (HR 1.01 CI 0.70-1.44; p=0.97) for BES versus SES, respectively. Thus BES was non-inferior to SES in all the safety endpoints. Clinically-indicated TVR occurred in 9.4% of BES treated patients versus 11.1% of SES treated patients (HR 0.84 CI 0.62-1.13; p=0.25). Rates of definite stent thrombosis were 2.2% for BES and 2.9% for SES (HR 0.78 CI 0.43-1.43; p=0.43), with the event rate increase of 0.2% from one to three years for BES and 0.9% for SES. For patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction BES was superior to SES in reducing MACE. Conclusions: The findings of the three year follow-up support the claim that the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent has equivalent safety and efficacy to permanent polymer sirolimus-eluting stent in an all-comers patient population. Its performance is superior in some subpopulations such as in ST-elevation MI patients and event rates for BES are overall lower than for SES with a trend toward increasing divergence of outcomes over three years. - See more at: http://www.pcronline.com/eurointervention/42nd_issue/125/#sthash.E5HhMQ4a.dpuf

Implantation of the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent in patients with high SYNTAX score is associated with decreased cardiac mortality compared to a permanent polymer sirolimus-eluting stent: two year follow-up results from the "all-comers" LEADERS trial

Background: The SYNTAX score (SXscore) has been shown to be an effective predictor of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods and results: The SXscore was prospectively collected in 1,397 of the 1,707 patients enrolled in the “all-comers” LEADERS trial (patients post-surgical revascularisation were excluded). Post hoc analysis was performed by stratifying clinical outcomes at two-year follow-up, according to one of three SXscore tertiles: SXlow ≤8 (n=464), 816 (n=461). At two-year follow-up the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was 18.4%, 12.0% and 9.4% in the SXhigh, SXmid, and SXlow tertile, respectively (HR 1.45; CI 1.21-1.74; p<0.01). There was a significantly higher rate of cardiac death in patients in the highest SXscore tertile (7% SXhigh versus 2.4% SXmid versus 1.8% SXlow; HR 2.22; CI 1.5-3.27; p<0.001). Within the SXhigh tertile the rate of cardiac death was significantly lower in patients treated with the biolimus-eluting stent compared with the sirolimus-eluting stent (4.7% versus 9.6%, HR 0.48; CI 0.23-0.99; p=0.046). Conclusions: The SXscore when applied to an “all-comers” patient population allows for prospective risk stratification of patients undergoing PCI up to two years follow-up. In addition, the SXscore appears to separate the performance of devices in high risk patient groups.

Two-year clinical follow-up from the randomized comparison of biolimus-eluting stents with biodegradable polymer and sirolimus-eluting stents with durable polymer in routine clinical practice

Objectives This study sought to investigate safety and efficacy of biolimus-eluting stents (BES) with biodegradable polymer as compared with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) with durable polymer through 2 years of follow-up. Background BES with a biodegradable polymer provide similar efficacy and safety as SES with a durable polymer at 9 months. Clinical outcomes beyond the period of biodegradation of the polymer used for drug release and after discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy are of particular interest. Methods A total of 1,707 patients were randomized to unrestricted use of BES (n = 857) or SES (n = 850) in an all-comers patient population. Results At 2 years, BES remained noninferior compared with SES for the primary endpoint, which was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization (BES 12.8% vs. SES 15.2%, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65 to 1.08, pnoninferiority < 0.0001, psuperiority = 0.18). Rates of cardiac death (3.2% vs. 3.9%, HR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.35, p = 0.42), myocardial infarction (6.3% vs. 5.6%, HR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.65, p = 0.56), and clinically indicated target vessel revascularization (7.5% vs. 8.6%, HR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.20, p = 0.38) were similar for BES and SES. The rate of definite stent thrombosis through 2 years was 2.2% for BES and 2.5% for SES (p = 0.73). For the period between 1 and 2 years, event rates for definite stent thrombosis were 0.2% for BES and 0.5% for SES (p = 0.42). After discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy, no very late definite stent thrombosis occurred in the BES group. Conclusions At 2 years of follow-up, the unrestricted use of BES with a biodegradable polymer maintained a similar safety and efficacy profile as SES with a durable polymer. (Limus Eluted From a Durable Versus Erodable Stent Coating [LEADERS]; NCT00389220)

Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents reduce the risk of stent thrombosis at 4 years in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from the ISAR-TEST 3, ISAR-TEST 4, and LEADERS randomized trials

The efficacy of durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DES) is delivered at the expense of delayed healing of the stented vessel. Biodegradable polymer DES aim to avoid this shortcoming and may potentially improve long-term clinical outcomes, with benefit expected to accrue over time. We sought to compare long-term outcomes in patients treated with biodegradable polymer DES vs. durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (SES).

Effect of biolimus-eluting stents with biodegradable polymer vs bare-metal stents on cardiovascular events among patients with acute myocardial infarction: the COMFORTABLE AMI randomized trial

The efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents remains controversial in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Biolimus-eluting stent with biodegradable polymer versus sirolimus-eluting stent with durable polymer for coronary revascularisation (LEADERS): a randomised non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND: 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.

Impact of vessel size on angiographic and clinical outcomes of revascularization with biolimus-eluting stent with biodegradable polymer and sirolimus-eluting stent with durable polymer the LEADERS trial substudy

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the impact of vessel size on outcomes of stenting with biolimus-eluting degradable polymer stent (BES) and sirolimus-eluting permanent polymer stent (SES) within a randomized multicenter trial (LEADERS). BACKGROUND: Stenting of small vessels might be associated with higher rates of adverse events. METHODS: "All-comer" patients (n = 1,707) were randomized to BES and SES. Post-hoc-stratified analysis of angiographic and clinical outcomes at 9 months and 1 year, respectively, was performed for vessels with reference diameter 2.75 mm. RESULTS: Of 1,707 patients, 429 patients in the BES group with 576 lesions and 434 patients in the SES group with 557 lesions had only small vessels treated (50.6% of the patient cohort). In patients with small vessels there was no significant difference in overall major adverse cardiac events (MACE) rate (12.1% vs. 11.8%; p = 0.89) or target lesion revascularization (TLR) rate (9.6% vs. 7.4%; p = 0.26) between BES and SES. The MACE and TLR rates in the small-vessel patient population were higher than in the large-vessel population. The TLR rate was 9.6% versus 2.6%, and MACE rate was 12.1% versus 7.1% for small versus large vessels in the BES arm (TLR: hazard ratio [HR] = 3.724, p = 0.0013; MACE: HR = 1.720, p = 0.0412). In the SES arm, TLR was 7.4% versus 5.1%, and MACE was 11.8% versus 10.3% in small versus large vessels (TLR: HR = 1.435, p = 0.2594; MACE: HR = 1.149, p = 0.5546). CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of small vessel disease is high in an "all-comer" population with higher TLR and MACE rates. The BES and SES seem equivalent in treatment outcomes of small vessels in this "all-comer" patient population.

Biolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer versus sirolimus-eluting permanent polymer stent performance in long lesions: results from the LEADERS multicentre trial substudy

AIMS: Lesion length remains a predictor of target lesion revascularisation and results of long lesion stenting remain poor. Sirolimus-eluting stents have been shown to perform better than paclitaxel eluting stents in long lesions. In this substudy of the LEADERS trial, we compared the performance of biolimus biodegradable polymer (BES) and sirolimus permanent polymer stents (SES) in long lesions. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1,707 'all-comer' patients were randomly allocated to treatment with BES and SES. A stratified analysis of angiographic and clinical outcomes at nine months and one year, respectively was performed for vessels with lesion length <20 mm versus >20 mm (as measured by quantitative angiography).Of 1,707 patients, 592 BES patients with 831 lesions and 619 SES patients with 876 lesions had only short lesions treated. One hundred and fifty-three BES patients with 166 lesions and 151 SES patients with 162 lesions had long lesions. There were no significant differences in baseline clinical characteristics, except for higher number of patients with long lesions presenting with acute myocardial infarction in both stent groups. Long lesions tended to have lower MLD and greater percent diameter stenosis at baseline than short lesions. Late loss was greater for long lesions than short lesions. There was no statistically significant difference in late loss between BES and SES stents (0.32+/-0.69 vs 0.24+/-0.57, p=0.59). Binary in-segment restenosis was present in 23.2% versus 13.1% of long lesions treated with BES and SES, respectively (p=0.042). In patients with long lesions, the overall MACE rate was similar for BES and SES (17% vs 14.6%; p=0.62). There was a trend towards higher overall TLR rate with BES (12.4 % vs 6.0%; HR=2.06; p=0.07) and clinically driven TLR (10.5% vs 5.3%: HR 1.94; p=0.13). Rates of definite stent thrombosis were 3.3% in the long lesion group and 1.3-1.7 % in the short lesion group. CONCLUSIONS: BES and SES appear similar with respect to MACE in long lesions in this "all-comer" patient population. However, long lesions tended to have a higher rate of binary in-segment restenosis and TLR following BES than SES treatment.

Long-term outcomes of biodegradable polymer versus durable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients with diabetes a pooled analysis of individual patient data from 3 randomized trials

BACKGROUND There is ongoing debate on the optimal drug-eluting stent (DES) in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease. Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) may potentially improve clinical outcomes in these high-risk patients. We sought to compare long-term outcomes in patients with diabetes treated with biodegradable polymer DES vs. durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). METHODS We pooled individual patient-level data from 3 randomized clinical trials (ISAR-TEST 3, ISAR-TEST 4 and LEADERS) comparing biodegradable polymer DES with durable polymer SES. Clinical outcomes out to 4years were assessed. The primary end point was the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target-lesion revascularization. Secondary end points were target lesion revascularization and definite or probable stent thrombosis. RESULTS Of 1094 patients with diabetes included in the present analysis, 657 received biodegradable polymer DES and 437 durable polymer SES. At 4years, the incidence of the primary end point was similar with BP-DES versus SES (hazard ratio=0.95, 95% CI=0.74-1.21, P=0.67). Target lesion revascularization was also comparable between the groups (hazard ratio=0.89, 95% CI=0.65-1.22, P=0.47). Definite or probable stent thrombosis was significantly reduced among patients treated with BP-DES (hazard ratio=0.52, 95% CI=0.28-0.96, P=0.04), a difference driven by significantly lower stent thrombosis rates with BP-DES between 1 and 4years (hazard ratio=0.15, 95% CI=0.03-0.70, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS In patients with diabetes, biodegradable polymer DES, compared to durable polymer SES, were associated with comparable overall clinical outcomes during follow-up to 4years. Rates of stent thrombosis were significantly lower with BP-DES.

Improved safety and reduction in stent thrombosis associated with biodegradable polymer-based biolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer-based sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: final 5-year report of the LEADERS (Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating) randomized, noninferiority trial

OBJECTIVES This study sought to report the final 5 years follow-up of the landmark LEADERS (Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating) trial. BACKGROUND The LEADERS trial is the first randomized study to evaluate biodegradable polymer-based drug-eluting stents (DES) against durable polymer DES. METHODS The LEADERS trial was a 10-center, assessor-blind, noninferiority, "all-comers" trial (N = 1,707). All patients were centrally randomized to treatment with either biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents (BES) (n = 857) or durable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) (n = 850). The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization within 9 months. Secondary endpoints included extending the primary endpoint to 5 years and stent thrombosis (ST) (Academic Research Consortium definition). Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS At 5 years, the BES was noninferior to SES for the primary endpoint (186 [22.3%] vs. 216 [26.1%], rate ratio [RR]: 0.83 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68 to 1.02], p for noninferiority <0.0001, p for superiority = 0.069). The BES was associated with a significant reduction in the more comprehensive patient-orientated composite endpoint of all-cause death, any MI, and all-cause revascularization (297 [35.1%] vs. 339 [40.4%], RR: 0.84 [95% CI: 0.71 to 0.98], p for superiority = 0.023). A significant reduction in very late definite ST from 1 to 5 years was evident with the BES (n = 5 [0.7%] vs. n = 19 [2.5%], RR: 0.26 [95% CI: 0.10 to 0.68], p = 0.003), corresponding to a significant reduction in ST-associated clinical events (primary endpoint) over the same time period (n = 3 of 749 vs. n = 14 of 738, RR: 0.20 [95% CI: 0.06 to 0.71], p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS The safety benefit of the biodegradable polymer BES, compared with the durable polymer SES, was related to a significant reduction in very late ST (>1 year) and associated composite clinical outcomes. (Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating [LEADERS] trial; NCT00389220).

Randomized comparison of biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary revascularization: Rationale and design of the BIOSCIENCE trial

Background Biodegradable polymers for release of antiproliferative drugs from metallic drug-eluting stents (DES) aim to improve long-term vascular healing and efficacy. We designed a large scale clinical trial to compare a novel thin strut, cobalt chromium DES with silicon carbide coating releasing sirolimus from a biodegradable polymer (Orsiro, O-SES) with the durable polymer-based Xience Prime everolimus-eluting stent (X-EES) in an all-comers patient population. Design The multicenter BIOSCIENCE trial (NCT01443104) randomly assigned 2,119 patients to treatment with biodegradable polymer SES or durable polymer EES at 9 sites in Switzerland. Patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes, including non-ST-elevation and ST-elevation myocardial infarction, were eligible for the trial if they had at least one lesion with a diameter stenosis >50% appropriate for coronary stent implantation. The primary endpoint target lesion failure (TLF) is a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically-driven target lesion revascularization within 12 months. Assuming a TLF rate of 8% at 12 months in both treatment arms and accepting 3.5% as a margin for non-inferiority, inclusion of 2,060 patients would provide 80% power to detect non-inferiority of the biodegradable polymer SES compared with the durable polymer EES at a one-sided type I error of 0.05. Clinical follow-up will be continued through five years. Conclusion The BIOSCIENCE trial will determine whether the biodegradable polymer SES is non-inferior to the durable polymer EES with respect to TLF.

Biolimus-Eluting Stents With Biodegradable Polymer Versus Bare-Metal Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction: Two-Year Clinical Results of the COMFORTABLE AMI Trial

BACKGROUND This study sought to determine whether the 1-year differences in major adverse cardiac event between a stent eluting biolimus from a biodegradable polymer and bare-metal stents (BMSs) in the COMFORTABLE trial (Comparison of Biolimus Eluted From an Erodible Stent Coating With Bare Metal Stents in Acute ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) were sustained during long-term follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS A total of 1061 patients were randomly assigned to biolimus-eluting stent (BES) and BMS at 11 centers, and follow-up rates at 2 years were 96.3%. A subgroup of 103 patients underwent angiography at 13 months. At 2 years, differences in the primary end point of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization continued to diverge in favor of BES-treated patients (5.8%) compared with BMS-treated patients (11.9%; hazard ratio=0.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.72; P<0.001) with a significant risk reduction during the second year of follow-up (hazard ratio 1-2 years=0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.20-1.00; P=0.049). Differences in the primary end point were driven by a reduction in target lesion revascularization (3.1% versus 8.2%; P<0.001) and target-vessel reinfarction (1.3% versus 3.4%; P=0.023). The composite of death, any reinfarction and revascularization (14.5% versus 19.3%; P=0.03), and cardiac death or target-vessel myocardial infarction (4.2% versus 7.2%; P=0.036) were less frequent among BES-treated patients compared with BMS-treated patients. The 13-month angiographic in-stent percent diameter stenosis amounted to 12.0±7.2 in BES- and 39.6±25.2 in BMS-treated lesions (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, BES continued to improve cardiovascular events compared with BMS beyond 1 year.

Ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent for percutaneous coronary revascularisation (BIOSCIENCE): a randomised, single-blind, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND Refinements in stent design affecting strut thickness, surface polymer, and drug release have improved clinical outcomes of drug-eluting stents. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of a novel, ultrathin strut cobalt-chromium stent releasing sirolimus from a biodegradable polymer with a thin strut durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent. METHODS We did a randomised, single-blind, non-inferiority trial with minimum exclusion criteria at nine hospitals in Switzerland. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients aged 18 years or older with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention to treatment with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents or durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents. Randomisation was via a central web-based system and stratified by centre and presence of ST segment elevation myocardial infarction. Patients and outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation, but treating physicians were not. The primary endpoint, target lesion failure, was a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically-indicated target lesion revascularisation at 12 months. A margin of 3·5% was defined for non-inferiority of the biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent compared with the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01443104. FINDINGS Between Feb 24, 2012, and May 22, 2013, we randomly assigned 2119 patients with 3139 lesions to treatment with sirolimus-eluting stents (1063 patients, 1594 lesions) or everolimus-eluting stents (1056 patients, 1545 lesions). 407 (19%) patients presented with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Target lesion failure with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (69 cases; 6·5%) was non-inferior to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (70 cases; 6·6%) at 12 months (absolute risk difference -0·14%, upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 1·97%, p for non-inferiority <0·0004). No significant differences were noted in rates of definite stent thrombosis (9 [0·9%] vs 4 [0·4%], rate ratio [RR] 2·26, 95% CI 0·70-7·33, p=0·16). In pre-specified stratified analyses of the primary endpoint, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents were associated with improved outcome compared with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in the subgroup of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (7 [3·3%] vs 17 [8·7%], RR 0·38, 95% CI 0·16-0·91, p=0·024, p for interaction=0·014). INTERPRETATION In a patient population with minimum exclusion criteria and high adherence to dual antiplatelet therapy, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents were non-inferior to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents for the combined safety and efficacy outcome target lesion failure at 12 months. The noted benefit in the subgroup of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction needs further study. FUNDING Clinical Trials Unit, University of Bern, and Biotronik, Bülach, Switzerland.