Objective: To compare the long-term clinical outcomes between biodegradable polymer-coated biolimus A9-eluting stent [BES] and durable biocompatible polymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent [EES] in the treatment of bifurcation lesions according to Thailand’s universal coverage scheme.

Materials and Methods: The authors retrospective reviewed bifurcation lesions treated either with BES or EES in their institution between January 2010 and December 2015. The incidence of target vessel failure [TVF] (a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction [MI], and target vessel revascularization [TVR]) in five years were compared between the two groups.

Results: One hundred sixty bifurcation lesions treated with BES in 84 lesions and EES in 76 lesions were analyzed. Patient and procedural characteristics were comparable between the two groups. One stent strategy was performed in similar proportion between the two platforms (BES 81% versus EES 75%, p = 0.44). There were no statistically significant differences in TVF rates between the two groups (BES 11.9% versus EES 14.5%, p = 0.75). The incidence of TVR (BES 6.0% versus EES 3.9%, p = 0.72) and stent thrombosis [ST] (BES 1.2% versus EES 1.3%, p = 1.00) were comparable between the two groups.

Conclusion: The long-term clinical outcomes in the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions under Thailand’s universal coverage scheme was comparable between BES and EES. There was a comparable rate of ST irrespective of the types of polymer.

Keywords: Biolimus-eluting stent, Everolimus-eluting stent, Coronary bifurcation