Harmonizing Optimal Strategy for Treatment of Coronary Artery Diseases Trial - Comparison of REDUCTION of PrasugrEl Dose & POLYmer TECHnology in ACS Patients (HOST REDUCE POLYTECH RCT Trial) Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Biostable Polymer DES (Promus PremierTM, Xience Alpine®, and Resolute Onyx®) With Biodegradable Polymer DES (Biomatrix®, Biomatrix Flex®, Nobori®, Ultimaster®,Synergy®, and Orsiro®)and Conventional Dose Prasugrel Therapy With Reduced Dose Prasugrel Therapy in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Abstract
* Study objectives
1. To compare the safety and long-term efficacy of coronary stenting with biostable polymer drug-eluting stent (Promus PremierTM, Xience Alpine®, Resolute Onyx®) with biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stent (Biomatrix®, Biomatrix Flex®, Nobori®, Ultimaster®, Synergy ® and Orsiro®) in patients with acute coronary syndrome
2. To compare the efficacy and safety of 5 mg prasugrel maintenance therapy compared with 10 mg prasugrel maintenance therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention
* Study design :
Prospective, open-label, 2-by-2 multifactorial, randomized, multicenter trial to test the following in CHD patients
1. Non-inferiority of biostable polymer drug-eluting stent (Promus PremierTM, Xience Alpine®, Resolute Onyx®) compared with biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stent (Biomatrix®, Biomatrix Flex®, Nobori®, Ultimaster®, Synergy ® and Orsiro®) in terms of patient-oriented composite outcome
2. Non-inferiority of 5 mg compared to 10 mg dose of prasugrel maintenance in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events
Conditions: Acute Coronary Syndrome.
Primary outcome: Stent arm : patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO), defined as a composite of all death, myocardial infarction (MI) or repeat revascularization; Antiplatelet arm : major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), defined as a composite of all death, MI, stent thrombosis, repeat revascularization, CVA, and BARC class ≥2 bleeding.
Enrollment: 3429…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 3,429 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Comparative effectiveness of GLP-1 receptor agonists on glycaemic control, body weight, and lipid profile for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis
- Adverse effects of cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors on renal and arrhythmia events: meta-analysis of randomized trials
- Benefits and harms of drug treatment for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
- Comparative effectiveness and safety of statins as a class and of specific statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A systematic review, meta‐analysis, and network meta‐analysis of randomized trials with 94,283 participants
- Screen time increases overweight and obesity risk among adolescents: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis
- Exposure to WHO AWaRe antibiotics and isolation of multi-drug resistant bacteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.