Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 19, 2025
A Simplified Stepwise Approach to Echo Guidance during Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair
Published on: October 16, 2021
A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing BioMime Sirolimus-Eluting Stent With Everolimus-Eluting Stent: Two-Year
Alexandre Abizaid1, Ricardo Costa2, Sasko Kedev3
1Heart Institute-InCor, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Background:
Drug-eluting stents (DESs) based on biodegradable polymers (BPs) have been introduced to reduce the risk for late and very late stent thrombosis (ST), which were frequently observed with earlier generations of DES designs based on durable polymers (DPs); however, randomized controlled trials on these DES designs are scarce. The meriT-V trial is a randomized, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial with a prospective, multicenter design that evaluated the 2-year efficacy of a novel third-generation, ultra-thin strut, BP-based BioMime sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) versus the DP-based XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent (EES) for the treatment of de novo lesions.
Methods:
The meriT-V is a randomized trial that enrolled 256 patients at 15 centers across Europe and Brazil. Here, we report the outcomes of the extended follow-up period of 2 years. The randomization of enrolled patients was in a 2:1 ratio; the enrolled patients received either the BioMime SES (n = 170) or the XIENCE EES (n = 86). The three-point major adverse cardiac event (MACE), defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (ID-TVR), was considered as the composite safety and efficacy endpoint. Ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (ID-TLR) was evaluated as well as the frequency of definite/probable ST, based on the first Academic Research Consortium definitions.
Results:
The trial had a 2-year follow-up completion rate of 98.44% (n = 252/256 patients), and the clinical outcomes assessment showed a nonsignificant difference in the cumulative rate of three-point MACE between both arms (BioMime vs. XIENCE: 7.74% vs. 9.52%, P = 0.62). Even the MI incidences in the BioMime arm were insignificantly lower than those of the XIENCE arm (1.79% vs. 5.95%, P = 0.17). Late ST was observed in 1.19% cases of the XIENCE arm, while there were no such cases in the BioMime arm (P = 0.16).
Conclusions:
The objective comparisons between the novel BP-based BioMime SES and the well-established DP-based XIENCE EES in this randomized controlled trial show acceptable outcomes of both the devices in the cardiac deaths, MI, ID-TVR, and ST. Moreover, since there were no incidences of cardiac death in the entire study sample over the course of 2 years, we contend that the findings of the study are highly significant for both these DES designs. In this preliminary comparative trial, the device safety of BioMime SES can be affirmed to be acceptable, considering the lower three-point MACE rate and absence of late ST in the BioMime arm over the 2-year period.
