n 336 © Europa Digital & Publishing 2013. All rights reserved. CLINICAL RESEARCH EuroIntervention 2013;9:336-344 published online ahead of print March 2013 DOI: 10.4244/EIJV9I3A55 *Corresponding author: Department of Cardiology, University & Hospital Fribourg, 1708 Fribourg, Switzerland. E-mail: stephane.cook@unifr.ch Long-term comparison of everolimus-eluting and biolimus- eluting stents Serban Puricel, MD; Markus Oberhänsli, MD; Patricia Guntern, SN; Sonja Lehmann, SN; Jean-Jacques Goy, MD; Diego Arroyo, MD; Hélène Villeneuve, SN; Gérard Baeriswyl, MD; Jean-Christophe Stauffer, MD; Mario Togni, MD; Stéphane Cook*, MD Department of Cardiology, University Hospital, Fribourg, Switzerland S. Puricel and M. Oberhänsli contributed equally to this article. Abstract Aims: Second-generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) are safer and more efficient than first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). Third-generation biolimus-eluting stents (BES) have been found to be non- inferior to PES. To date, there is no available comparative study between EES and BES. We aimed to inves- tigate the safety and efficacy of BES with biodegradable polymer compared to EES with durable polymer at a follow-up of two years in an unselected population of consecutively enrolled patients. Methods and results: A group of 814 consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was enrolled between 2007 and 2010, of which 527 were treated with EES and 287 with BES implanta- tion. Clinical outcome was compared in 200 pairs using propensity score matching. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) and target vessel revascularisation (TVR) at two-year follow-up. Median follow-up was 22 months. The primary outcome occurred in 11.5% of EES and 10.5% of BES patients (HR 1.11, 95% CI: 0.61-2.00, p=0.74). At two years, there was no significant difference with regard to death (HR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.18-1.34, p=0.17), cardiac death (HR 0.14, 95% CI: 0.02-1.14, p=0.66) or MI (HR 6.10, 95% CI: 0.73-50.9, p=0.10). Stent thrombosis (ST) incidence was evenly distributed between EES (n=2) and BES (n=2) (p-value=1.0). Conclusions: This first clinical study failed to demonstrate any significant difference regarding safety or efficacy between these two types and generations of drug-eluting stents (DES). KEYWORDS • drug-eluting stent • percutaneous coronary intervention • stent thrombosis