Comparison of Ridaforolimus‐Eluting and Zotarolimus‐Eluting Coronary Stents: 5‐Year Outcomes From the BIONICS and NIREUS Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The BIONICS (BioNIR Ridaforolimus‐Eluting Coronary Stent System in Coronary Stenosis) and the NIREUS (BioNIR Ridaforolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [BioNIR] European Angiography Study) randomized clinical trials showed noninferiority of the ridaforolimus‐eluting stent (RES) compared with the zotarolimus‐eluting stent (ZES) with respect to 1‐year target‐lesion failure and 6‐month angiographic late lumen loss. We aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes between treatment groups over a 5‐year follow‐up. Methods and Results Patient‐level data from the BIONICS (n=1919) and NIREUS (n=302) were pooled, comparing the outcomes of patients implanted with RES and ZES. The primary end point was the 5‐year rate of target‐lesion failure. A total of 2221 patients (63.2±10.3 years, 79.7% men) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with RES (n=1159) or ZES (n=1062) were included. Most clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between groups. At 5 years, the primary end point of target‐lesion failure was similar between treatment groups (12.2% RES versus 11.3% ZES, P =0.52). Rates of TLR (7.6% RES versus 6.8% ZES, P =0.42) target‐vessel–related myocardial infarction (4.8% RES versus 4.9% ZES, P =0.95) and stent thrombosis (0.9% RES versus 0.9% ZES, P =0.87) also did not differ between groups. Target‐vessel revascularization and cardiac death were higher among the RES group (12.3% versus 9.5% P =0.037, and 3.6% versus 2.2% P =0.042, respectively). However, after correction for baseline characteristics, there was no significant difference in cardiac death between groups. Conclusions In a pooled analysis of 2 randomized trials, 5‐year clinical outcomes were similar between patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with RES and ZES. These results support the long‐term safety and efficacy of RES for the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".