Search

Background: Biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents improve early stent-related clinical outcomes compared to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The long-term advantages of biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents after complete degradation of its polymer coating in patients with STEMI remains however uncertain., Methods: BIOSTEMI Extended Survival (BIOSTEMI ES) was an investigator-initiated, follow-up extension study of the BIOSTEMI prospective, multicentre, single-blind, randomised superiority trial that compared biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention at ten hospitals in Switzerland. All individuals who had provided written informed consent for participation in the BIOSTEMI trial were eligible for this follow-up study. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial re-infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation, at 5 years. Superiority of biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents over durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents was declared if the Bayesian posterior probability for a rate ratio (RR) of less than 1 was greater than 0·975. Analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05484310., Findings: Between April 26, 2016, and March 9, 2018, 1300 patients with STEMI (1622 lesions) were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to treatment with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (649 patients, 816 lesions) or durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (651 patients, 806 lesions). At 5 years, the primary composite endpoint of target lesion failure occurred in 50 (8%) patients treated with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents and in 72 (11%) patients treated with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (difference of -3%; RR 0·70, 95% Bayesian credible interval 0·51-0·95; Bayesian posterior probability for superiority 0·988)., Interpretation: In patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents were superior to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents with respect to target lesion failure at 5 years of follow-up. The difference was driven by a numerically lower risk for ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation., Funding: Biotronik., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JFI reports a research grant to their institution, speaker fees, and support for attending meetings from Biotronik; research grants to their institution from Abbott Vascular, Astra Zeneca, Biosensors, Concept Medical, Philips, and Terumo Corporation, outside the submitted work; and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Biosensors, Biotronik, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cordis, Concept Medical, Medalliance, Medtronic, Novartis, Terumo Corporation, Pfizer, and Philips, outside the submitted work. MR reports research grants to the institution from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cordis, Medtronic, and Terumo Corporation, outside the submitted work. SL and DH are employed by the CTU Bern, University of Bern, which has a staff policy of not accepting honoraria or consultancy fees. However, CTU Bern is involved in design, conduct, or analysis of clinical studies funded by not-for-profit and for-profit organisations. In particular, pharmaceutical and medical device companies provide direct funding to some of these studies. An up-to-date list of CTU Bern's conflicts of interest can be found online. OM reports a research grant to their institution, and speaker and personal fees from Edwards Lifesciences, outside the submitted work; and speaker fees from Abbott Vascular, outside the submitted work. SD reports research grants to their institution from Abbott Vascular and Biotronik, outside the submitted work; and speaker fees from Biotronik, Medalliance, and Medtronic, outside the submitted work. LH reports research grants to their institution from Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Bracco, Bristol Myers Squibb, B-Braun, Daiichi-Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, GE HealthCare, Medtronic, Microport, Novartis, Pfizer, Vascular Medical, and Zoll, outside the submitted work; speaker fees from Medtronic, outside the submitted work; and support for attending meetings from Daiichi-Sankyo and Biotronik. CK reports consulting fees to the institution from Unimedtec Switzerland; and support for attending meetings from Medtronic, outside the submitted work. SW reports research, travel, or educational grants to their institution from Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bbraun, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardinal Health, CardioValve, Cordis Medical, Corflow Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Farapulse, Fumedica, Guerbet, Idorsia, Inari Medical, InfraRedx, Janssen-Cilag, Johnson & Johnson, Medalliance, Medicure, Medtronic, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Miracor Medical, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Organon, OrPha Suisse, Pharming Tech, Pfizer, Polares, Regeneron, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, Sinomed, Terumo Corporation, Vifor, and V-Wave; and served as an advisory board member or member of the steering or executive group of trials funded by Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Bristol Myers Squibb, Edwards Lifesciences, MedAlliance, Medtronic, Novartis, Polares, Recardio, Sinomed, Terumo Corporation, and V-Wave, with payments to the institution but no personal payments. He is also a member of the steering or executive committee group of several investigator-initiated trials that receive funding by industry without impact on his personal remuneration. TP reports a research grant to their institution from Biotronik; research, travel, or educational grants to their institution without personal remuneration from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and ATSens, outside the submitted work; and speaker fees and consultancy fees to their institution from Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Highlife, and Medtronic, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) are superior to thin-strut durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) with respect to target lesion failure (TLF) at 2 years among patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We sought to determine the impact of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) complexity on long-term clinical outcomes with BP-SES versus DP-EES in STEMI patients., Methods: We performed a post hoc subgroup analysis from the BIOSTEMI (NCT02579031) randomized trial, which included individual data from 407 STEMI patients enrolled in the BIOSCIENCE trial (NCT01443104). STEMI patients were randomly assigned to treatment with ultrathin-strut BP-SES or thin-strut DP-EES, and further categorized into those undergoing complex versus noncomplex pPCI. Complex pPCI was defined by the presence of ≥1 of the following criteria: 3 vessel treatment, ≥3 stents implanted, ≥3 lesions treated, bifurcation lesion with ≥2 stents implanted, total stent length ≥60 mm, and/or chronic total occlusion treatment. The primary endpoint was TLF, a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial reinfarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization, within 2 years., Results: Among a total of 1707 STEMI patients, 421 (24.7%) underwent complex pPCI. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. At 2 years, TLF occurred in 14 patients (7.1%) treated with BP-SES and 25 patients (11.6%) treated with DP-EES (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32-1.19; p = 0.15) in the complex pPCI group, and in 28 patients (4.4%) treated with BP-SES and 49 patients (8.2%) treated with DP-EES (HR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.34-0.86; p = 0.008; p for interaction = 0.74) in the noncomplex pPCI group. Individual TLF components and stent thrombosis rates did not significantly differ between groups., Conclusion: In a post hoc subgroup analysis from the BIOSTEMI randomized trial, ultrathin-strut BP-SES were superior to thin-strut DP-EES with respect to TLF at 2 years among STEMI patients undergoing both complex and noncomplex pPCI., (© 2023 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Randomized evidence comparing newer-generation drug-eluting stents for multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is limited. We sought to investigate clinical outcomes in STEMI patients undergoing multivessel PCI with thin-strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES)., Methods: We performed a subgroup analysis of the BIOSTEMI (NCT02579031) randomized trial, which included individual patient data from STEMI patients enrolled into the BIOSCIENCE (NCT02579031) study. STEMI patients randomly allocated to BP-SES or DP-EES were divided into those undergoing multivessel versus culprit lesion-only PCI. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial re-infarction or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (TLR), within 24 months., Results: Among 1707 STEMI patients, 145 patients underwent multivessel PCI. At 2 years, TLF occurred in 2 patients (2.8%) treated with BP-SES and 13 patients (18.7%) treated with DP-EES (hazard ratio [HR], 0.14; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.03-0.61; p = 0.009) in the multivessel PCI group, and in 40 (5.3%) and 61 (8.2%) patients treated with BP-SES and DP-EES respectively (HR, 0.64; 95%CI, 0.43-0.96; p = 0.03; p for interaction = 0.050) in the culprit lesion-only PCI group. In the multivessel PCI group, the rates of clinically indicated TLR (0% vs. 12.4%) and target vessel myocardial re-infarction (0% vs. 4.6%) at 2 years were lower in patients treated with BP-SES compared with DP-EES., Conclusion: In a subgroup analysis of the BIOSTEMI trial, BP-SES were associated with lower 2-year TLF rates compared to DP-EES in STEMI patients undergoing multivessel PCI., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) compared with durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)., Background: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is an effective treatment for patients with STEMI, and long-term outcomes are determined by the safety and efficacy profile of the newest generation drug-eluting stents., Methods: BIOSTEMI (A Comparison of an Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent With a Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Patients With Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) was an investigator-initiated, multicenter, assessor-blind, randomized superiority trial using Bayesian methods. Patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI within 24 h of symptom onset were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive BP-SES (n = 649) or DP-EES (n = 651). The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial reinfarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 2 years., Results: Between April 2016 and March 2018, 1,300 patients were included. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the 2 treatment groups. Follow-up through 2 years was complete in 1,221 patients (94%). At 2 years, TLF occurred in 33 patients (5.1%) treated with BP-SES and in 53 patients (8.1%) treated with DP-EES (rate ratio: 0.58; 95% Bayesian credible interval: 0.40 to 0.84; posterior probability of superiority = 0.998). The difference was driven by a lower incidence of clinically indicated TLR in patients treated with BP-SES compared with DP-EES (2.5% vs. 5.1%; rate ratio: 0.52; 95% Bayesian credible interval: 0.30 to 0.87; posterior probability of superiority = 0.993). There were no significant differences in rates of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial reinfarction, and definite stent thrombosis between the 2 treatment arms., Conclusions: In patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI, BP-SES were superior to DP-EES with respect to TLF at 2 years. The difference was driven by lower rates of ischemia-driven TLR. (A Comparison of an Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent With a Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Patients With Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [BIOSTEMI]; NCT02579031)., Competing Interests: Funding Support And Author Disclosures The BIOSTEMI trial was an investigator-initiated study supported by a dedicated research grant from Biotronik. Dr. Pilgrim has received research grants to the institution from Biotronik and Boston Scientific; has received speaker fees from Biotronik and Boston Scientific; and is a consultant for HighlifeSAS. Dr. Roffi has received institutional research grants from Terumo, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, and Biotronik, outside the submitted work. Dr. Valgimigli has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Alvimedica/CID, Abbott Vascular, Daiichi-Sankyo, Opsens, Bayer, CoreFLOW, IDORSIA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD, Universität Basel/Dept. Klinische Forschung, Vifor, Bristol Myers Squibb SA, iVascular, Medscape, and Biotronik; and has received grants and personal fees from Terumo, outside the submitted work. Dr. Jüni is a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Clinical Epidemiology of Chronic Diseases, and this research was completed, in part, with funding from the Canada Research Chairs Programme; and serves as an unpaid member of the steering groups of trials funded by AstraZeneca, Biotronik, Biosensors, St. Jude Medical, and The Medicines Company. Dr. Windecker has received research and educational grants to the institution from Abbott, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Cardinal Health, Cardiovalve, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Querbet, Polares, Sanofi, Terumo, and Sinomed; serves as an unpaid member of the steering and/or executive groups of trials funded by Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Cardiovalve, Edwards Lifesciences, MedAlliance, Medtronic, Polares, Sinomed, V-Wave, and Xeltis (but has not received personal payments from any pharmaceutical company or device manufacturer); and is a member of the steering and/or executive committee groups of several investigated-initiated trials that receive funding from industry, without impact on his personal remuneration. Dr. Iglesias has received a research grant to the institution and personal fees from Biotronik during the conduct of the study; has received research grants to the institution and personal fees from Biotronik, Philips Volcano, Abbott Vascular, and AstraZeneca; and has received personal fees from Terumo, Medtronic, and Cardinal Health, outside the submitted work. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor eptifibatide, administered as bolus followed by infusion, is an adjunctive antithrombotic treatment during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in selected patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Whether both bolus and infusion are necessary to improve outcomes is unknown. We hypothesized that primary PCI with eptifibatide bolus only is non-inferior to the conventional treatment (bolus and infusion) with regard to infarct size, while reducing bleeding complications. We analyzed 720 consecutive STEMI patients receiving eptifibatide bolus only or conventional treatment in an observational case-control study utilizing propensity score matching of clinical and intervention-specific confounders. Infarct size was estimated based on myocardial bound creatine kinase, creatine kinase (CK), and CK area under the curve values, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 20%. Major bleeding was defined as type 2, 3, or 5 on the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium classification. Eptifibatide bolus only was administered to 147 patients (20%), which were matched 1:1 to patients receiving conventional treatment. Based on peak myocardial bound creatine kinase, CK and CK area under the curve values, infarct size was -8.4% (95% CI [-31.2%, 14.4%]), -11.6% (95% CI [-33.5%, 10.3%]), and -13.9% (95% CI [-34.1%, 6.2%]) after eptifibatide bolus, respectively, reaching prespecified noninferiority compared with conventional treatment. Bolus treatment significantly reduced major bleeding complications (OR 0.48, 95% CI [0.30, 0.79]). In conclusion, eptifibatide given as abbreviated bolus only to selected STEMI patients who underwent primary PCI was noninferior regarding infarct size and resulted in less bleeding complications compared with conventional bolus and infusion treatment., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In patients with acute myocardial infarction, the presence of a left bundle branch block or right bundle branch block may be associated with worse prognosis compared to isolated ST segment elevation. However, specificities in clinical presentation and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction patients with left bundle branch block or right bundle branch block are poorly characterized., Methods: We analysed acute myocardial infarction patients with left bundle branch block ( n =880), right bundle branch block ( n =732) or ST segment elevation without bundle branch block ( n =15,852) included in the Acute Myocardial Infarction in Switzerland-Plus registry between 2008-2019., Results: Acute myocardial infarction patients with bundle branch block were older and had more pre-existing cardiovascular conditions compared to ST segment elevation. Pulmonary oedema and cardiogenic shock were most frequent in patients with left bundle branch block (18.8% vs 12.0% for right bundle branch block and 7.9% for ST segment elevation, p <0.001). Acute myocardial infarction patients with bundle branch block had more three-vessel (40.6% vs 25.3%, p <0.001 vs ST segment elevation) and left main disease (5.6% vs 2.0%, p <0.001 vs ST segment elevation). Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, a composite of reinfarction, stroke/transient ischaemic attack, and death during hospitalization, were highest in acute myocardial infarction patients with left bundle branch block (13.9% vs 9.9% for right bundle branch block and 6.7% for ST segment elevation, p <0.05), which was driven by hospital mortality. After multivariate adjustment, however, mortality was similar in patients with left bundle branch block and lower in patients with right bundle branch block, respectively, when compared to ST segment elevation. Mortality was only increased when a right bundle branch block with concomitant STE was present (odds ratio 1.77, 95% confidence interval 1.19-2.64, p <0.01 vs ST segment elevation)., Conclusions: Compared to ST segment elevation, an isolated bundle branch block reflects high-risk clinical characteristics but does not independently determine increased hospital mortality in acute myocardial infarction.

Background: Newer-generation drug-eluting stents that combine ultrathin strut metallic platforms with biodegradable polymers might facilitate vascular healing and improve clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with contemporary thin strut second-generation drug-eluting stents. We did a randomised clinical trial to investigate the safety and efficacy of ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus thin strut durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary PCI., Methods: The BIOSTEMI trial was an investigator-initiated, multicentre, prospective, single-blind, randomised superiority trial at ten hospitals in Switzerland. Patients aged 18 years or older with acute STEMI who were referred for primary PCI were eligible to participate. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to either biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents or durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents. Central randomisation was done based on a computer-generated allocation sequence with variable block sizes of 2, 4, and 6, which was stratified by centre, diabetes status, and presence or absence of multivessel coronary artery disease, and concealed using a secure web-based system. Patients and treating physicians were aware of group allocations, whereas outcome assessors were masked to the allocated stent. The experimental stent (Orsiro; Biotronik; Bülach, Switzerland) consisted of an ultrathin strut cobalt-chromium metallic stent platform releasing sirolimus from a biodegradable polymer. The control stent (Xience Xpedition/Alpine; Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, IL, USA) consisted of a thin strut cobalt-chromium stent platform that releases everolimus from a durable polymer. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial reinfarction (Q-wave and non-Q-wave), and clinically-indicated target lesion revascularisation, within 12 months of the index procedure. All analyses were done with the individual participant as the unit of analysis and according to the intention-to-treat principle. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02579031., Findings: Between April 26, 2016, and March 9, 2018, we randomly assigned 1300 patients (1623 lesions) with acute myocardial infarction to treatment with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (649 patients and 816 lesions) or durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (651 patients and 806 lesions). At 12 months, follow-up data were available for 614 (95%) patients treated with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents and 626 (96%) patients treated with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents. The primary composite endpoint of target lesion failure occurred in 25 (4%) of 649 patients treated with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents and 36 (6%) of 651 patients treated with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (difference -1·6 percentage points; rate ratio 0·59, 95% Bayesian credibility interval 0·37-0·94; posterior probability of superiority 0·986). Cardiac death, target vessel myocardial reinfarction, clinically-indicated target lesion revascularisation, and definite stent thrombosis were similar between the two treatment groups in the 12 months of follow-up., Interpretation: In patients with acute STEMI undergoing primary PCI, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents were superior to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents with respect to target lesion failure at 1 year. This difference was driven by reduced ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation in patients treated with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents compared with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents., Funding: Biotronik., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Women with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) experience greater delays for percutaneous coronary intervention-facilitated reperfusion than men. Whether women and men benefit equally from current strategies to reduce ischaemic time and whether there are gender differences in factors determining delays is unclear., Methods: Patient delay (symptom onset to first medical contact) and system delay (first medical contact to percutaneous coronary intervention-facilitated reperfusion) were compared between women ( n=967) and men ( n=3393) in a Swiss STEMI treatment network. Trends from 2000 to 2016 were analysed, with additional comparisons between three time periods (2000-2005, 2006-2011 and 2012-2016). Factors predicting delays and hospital mortality were determined by multivariate regression modelling., Results: Female gender was independently associated with greater patient delay ( P=0.02 vs. men), accounting for a 12% greater total ischaemic time among women in 2012-2016 (median 215 vs. 192 minutes, P<0.001 vs. men). From 2000-2005 to 2012-2016, median system delay was reduced by 18 and 25 minutes in women and men, respectively ( P<0.0001 for trend, P=n.s. for gender difference). Total occlusion of the culprit artery, stent thrombosis, a Killip class of 3 or greater, and presentation during off-hours predicted delays in men, but not in women. A Killip class of 3 or greater and age, but not gender or delays, were independently associated with hospital mortality., Conclusions: STEMI-related ischaemic time in women remains greater than in men due to persistently greater patient delays. In contrast to men, clinical signs of ongoing chest discomfort do not predict delays in women, suggesting that female STEMI patients are less likely to attribute symptoms to a condition requiring urgent treatment.

Aims: A novel ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) (Orsiro; Biotronik, Bülach, Switzerland) was shown to be superior to a thin-strut durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES) (XIENCE Xpedition/Alpine; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) with respect to the primary endpoint of target lesion failure (TLF) at 12 months in the pre-specified subgroup of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) included in the BIOSCIENCE trial. We designed a large-scale, randomised, clinical trial to assess the clinical superiority of ultrathin-strut BP-SES over thin-strut DP-EES among patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI)., Methods and Results: BIOSTEMI (NCT02579031) is a prospective, multicentre, randomised, controlled, superiority trial that will randomly assign 1,250 patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI to treatment with BP-SES or DP-EES. The primary endpoint of TLF, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel reinfarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation within 12 months, will be analysed with Bayesian models applied to the BIOSTEMI data set (n=1,250) using robust historical priors to incorporate historical information from the BIOSCIENCE STEMI subgroup (n=407)., Conclusions: The BIOSTEMI trial will determine whether ultrathin-strut BP-SES are superior to thin-strut DP-EES with respect to TLF in patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI.