Tehran University of Medical Sciences The Research in Heart Yield and Translational Medicine (RHYTHM) 3115-7270 11 2 2016 10 10 62 67 EN Mohammad Alidoosti Tehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Vahideh Sharifnia Tehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Seyed Ebrahim Kassaian Tehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Alimohammad Hajizeinali Tehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Hamidreza Poorhosseini Tehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Mojtaba Salarifar Tehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Younes Nozari Tehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Elham Hakki Kazazi Tehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2016 07 04 2016 07 04 Background: The biolimus-eluting stent (BES), with a biodegradable polymer, has not been previously compared with the everolimus-eluting stent (EES), as a second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES).We sought to compare the 1-year outcome between the PROMUS™ stent (EES type) and the BioMatrix™ stent (BES type). Methods: From March 2008 to September 2011, all patients treated with the PROMUS™ stent or the BioMatrix™ stent for coronary artery stenosis at Tehran Heart Center were enrolled. The primary end points were 1-year adverse events, comprising death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and target lesion revascularization.  The secondary end point was stent thrombosis. The Cox proportional hazard model was used to assess the adjusted association between the stent type and the follow-up outcome. Results: From 949 patients (66.3% male, mean age =59.48 ± 10.46 y) with 1,018 treated lesions, 591 patients (630 lesions, 65.1% male, mean age = 59.24 ± 10.23 y) received the PROMUS™ stent and 358 patients (388 lesions, 68.2% male, mean age = 59.88 ± 10.83 y) were treated with the BioMatrix™ stent. Before adjustment, the rate of the primary end points was 3.2% and 3.4% in the EES and BES, respectively (p value = 0.925, HR (EES to BES) = 1.035, 95% CI: 0.50 to 2.13). The rate of stent thrombosis was 2% and 1.7% in the EES and BES, respectively (p value = 0.698). After adjustment on confounder variables, there was no statistically significant difference in major adverse cardiac events between the PROMUS™ stent and the BioMatrix™ stent (p value = 0.598, HR (EES to BES) = 0.817, 95% CI: 0.39 to 1.73). Conclusion: At 1 year’s follow-up, the BES and EES showed similar safety and efficacy rates in the patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with a relatively low rate of adverse events in the 2 groups.     https://rhythm.tums.ac.ir/index.php/jthc/article/view/580 https://rhythm.tums.ac.ir/index.php/jthc/article/download/580/451