The BIOFLOW-DAPT randomized trial compared two contemporary coronary stent strategies in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who were identified as being at high bleeding risk. The comparison was between biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents and durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents. The PubMed record identifies the trial as a randomized controlled study published in a peer-reviewed cardiovascular journal.
The PubMed entry classifies the study as a Randomized Controlled Trial but the SOURCE JINA body provided here does not include the trial abstract text describing specific eligibility criteria, sample size, randomization scheme, duration of follow-up, or endpoint definitions. The trial population is described at a high level only: patients with acute coronary syndrome who also had high bleeding risk. Further patient-level and methodological details were not reported in the available source content.
The two investigational device strategies named in the trial are:
The PubMed record lists these device types and frames the trial as a head-to-head comparison in a clinically relevant high-bleeding-risk ACS population. No device-specific procedural details, sizes, or manufacturers were provided in the SOURCE JINA body.
The printed author list shows a broad, multinational investigator group, with authors and affiliations from multiple European centers and one listed affiliation in Egypt. Institutions represented include academic and clinical cardiology centers across Germany, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Denmark, France, Italy, Switzerland, Belgium, and Egypt. The large author and affiliation list indicates a multicenter collaboration; however, the SOURCE JINA body did not enumerate participating sites, enrollment numbers per site, or coordinating center details.
The study is published in European Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care, dated 29 August 2026 (15[8]:596–607). The PubMed record indicates the article is available as a free article. Identifiers shown in the source are:
These identifiers should be used to retrieve the full text for complete methods and results.
The SOURCE JINA body on PubMed provides bibliographic metadata, author names and affiliations, and indexing details, but the abstract text and the trial results were not included in the supplied content. Consequently, this summary does not report primary or secondary endpoint outcomes, safety results (including bleeding or stent thrombosis rates), measures of non-inferiority or superiority, statistical analyses, or conclusions about clinical equivalence. Information about the duration or strategy of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), periprocedural antithrombotic management, or subgroup analyses was also not available in the provided material.
Where specifics are absent from the SOURCE JINA content, the summary clearly states that such details were not reported and must be obtained from the full article.
For clinicians, researchers, or guideline authors who need complete trial data (methods, numerical outcomes, statistical analysis, and authors’ conclusions), the PubMed entry provides the DOI and journal citation to retrieve the full text. The DOI 10.1093/ehjacc/zuag089 and PubMed PMID 42555546 will link to the published article on the journal site, which the PubMed record indicates is available as a free article. The full text should be consulted for definitive information on efficacy, bleeding outcomes, recommended DAPT duration, and any protocol-specified definitions relevant to high-bleeding-risk ACS patients.
The BIOFLOW-DAPT trial is a randomized head-to-head comparison of biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting versus durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents in patients with ACS at high bleeding risk.
The PubMed record supplies full bibliographic and authorship data but does not include the trial abstract or outcome data in the SOURCE JINA body provided here.
Clinicians should consult the full published article (Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care, 2026; DOI 10.1093/ehjacc/zuag089) to review the trial’s methods, endpoint results, and authors’ conclusions before applying findings to practice.