Introduction. Biolimus-eluting stents (BES) are known to be superior to bare-metal stents. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of BES compared to other drug-eluting stents (DES) based on big data from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR). Methods. The study analyzed a total of 9,759 acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with DES. Total death, cardiac death, recurrent MI, revascularization, stent thrombosis, target lesion failure (TLF, composite of cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE, composite of total death, recurrent MI, and revascularization) were analyzed in patients with AMI up to three years. Study populations were divided into BES (n = 2,020), everolimus-eluting stents (EES, n = 5,293), and zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES, n = 2,446) groups. Results. To adjust baseline potential confounders, an inverse probability weighting (IPTW) analysis was performed. After IPTW, at three years, total death (7.2%, 8.6%, and 9.5%, ), cardiac death (4.1%, 5.3%, and 6.6%, ), recurrent MI (1.6%, 2.6%, and 3.2%, ), TLF (6.5%, 8.1%, and 9.1%, ), and MACE (15.8%, 17.5%, and 18.2%, ) were lowest in the BES group compared with the other DES groups in AMI patients. During the 3-year clinical follow-up, the BES group showed better outcomes of MACE (hazard ratio (HR), 0.773; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.676–0.884; ), TLF (HR, 0.659; 95% CI, 0.538–0.808; ), total death (HR, 0.687; 95% CI, 0.566–0.835; ), and cardiac death (HR,0.593; 95% CI, 0.462–0.541; ) than the EES groups. Conclusions. In this study, BES was superior to EES or ZES in reducing total death, cardiac death, TLF, and MACE in AMI patients.

中文翻译：

---

Biolimus 洗脱支架与其他当代药物洗脱支架在急性心肌梗死患者中的真实三年临床结果：来自韩国急性心肌梗死登记处 (KAMIR) 的数据

介绍。众所周知，生物莫司洗脱支架 (BES) 优于裸金属支架。本研究旨在基于韩国急性心肌梗死登记处 (KAMIR) 的大数据，评估 BES 与其他药物洗脱支架 (DES) 相比的安全性和有效性。方法. 该研究分析了总共 9,759 名接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗 (PCI) 和 DES 的急性心肌梗死 (AMI) 患者。总死亡、心源性死亡、复发性心肌梗死、血运重建、支架血栓形成、靶病变失败（TLF，心源性死亡、复发性心肌梗死（MI）和靶病变血运重建的复合）和主要不良心脏事件（MACE，总死亡的复合） 、复发性 MI 和血运重建）在 AMI 患者中进行了长达 3 年的分析。研究人群分为 BES（n  = 2,020）、依维莫司洗脱支架（EES，n  = 5,293）和佐他莫司洗脱支架（ZES，n  = 2,446）组。结果. 为了调整基线潜在混杂因素，进行了逆概率加权 (IPTW) 分析。IPTW 后三年，总死亡人数（7.2%、8.6% 和 9.5%，),心源性死亡 (4.1%, 5.3%, 和 6.6%,)，复发性 MI（1.6%、2.6% 和 3.2%，)、 TLF（6.5%、8.1% 和 9.1%，）和 MACE（15.8%、17.5% 和 18.2%，)在 AMI 患者中与其他 DES 组相比在 BES 组中最低。在 3 年的临床随访期间，BES 组显示出更好的 MACE 结局（风险比 (HR)，0.773；95% 置信区间 (CI)，0.676–0.884；), TLF (HR, 0.659; 95% CI, 0.538–0.808;)，总死亡数（HR，0.687；95% CI，0.566–0.835；)和心源性死亡 (HR, 0.593; 95% CI, 0.462–0.541;)比 EES 组。结论。在这项研究中，BES 在降低 AMI 患者的总死亡、心源性死亡、TLF 和 MACE 方面优于 EES 或 ZES。