Literature DB >> 20554978

Comparison of zotarolimus-eluting and everolimus-eluting coronary stents.

Patrick W Serruys1, Sigmund Silber, Scot Garg, Robert Jan van Geuns, Gert Richardt, Pawel E Buszman, Henning Kelbaek, Adrianus Johannes van Boven, Sjoerd H Hofma, Axel Linke, Volker Klauss, William Wijns, Carlos Macaya, Philippe Garot, Carlo DiMario, Ganesh Manoharan, Ran Kornowski, Thomas Ischinger, Antonio Bartorelli, Jacintha Ronden, Marco Bressers, Pierre Gobbens, Manuela Negoita, Frank van Leeuwen, Stephan Windecker.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: New-generation coronary stents that release zotarolimus or everolimus have been shown to reduce the risk of restenosis. However, it is unclear whether there are differences in efficacy and safety between the two types of stents on the basis of prospectively adjudicated end points endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration.
METHODS: In this multicenter, noninferiority trial with minimal exclusion criteria, we randomly assigned 2292 patients to undergo treatment with coronary stents releasing either zotarolimus or everolimus. Twenty percent of patients were randomly selected for repeat angiography at 13 months. The primary end point was target-lesion failure, defined as a composite of death from cardiac causes, any myocardial infarction (not clearly attributable to a nontarget vessel), or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization within 12 months. The secondary angiographic end point was the extent of in-stent stenosis at 13 months.
RESULTS: At least one off-label criterion for stent placement was present in 66% of patients. The zotarolimus-eluting stent was noninferior to the everolimus-eluting stent with respect to the primary end point, which occurred in 8.2% and 8.3% of patients, respectively (P<0.001 for noninferiority). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of death from cardiac causes, any myocardial infarction, or revascularization. The rate of stent thrombosis was 2.3% in the zotarolimus-stent group and 1.5% in the everolimus-stent group (P=0.17). The zotarolimus-eluting stent was also noninferior regarding the degree (+/-SD) of in-stent stenosis (21.65+/-14.42% for zotarolimus vs. 19.76+/-14.64% for everolimus, P=0.04 for noninferiority). In-stent late lumen loss was 0.27+/-0.43 mm in the zotarolimus-stent group versus 0.19+/-0.40 mm in the everolimus-stent group (P=0.08). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS: At 13 months, the new-generation zotarolimus-eluting stent was found to be noninferior to the everolimus-eluting stent in a population of patients who had minimal exclusion criteria. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00617084.) 2010 Massachusetts Medical Society

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20554978     DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1004130

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  110 in total

1.  Should we rely on OCT to assess the improvements of new generation drug-eluting stents?

Authors:  Pedro A Lemos
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2011-11-01       Impact factor: 2.357

Review 2.  Late stent thrombosis: the last remaining obstacle in coronary interventional therapy.

Authors:  Piera Capranzano; George Dangas
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 2.931

3.  Comparing clinical outcomes for a twelve-month trial of zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: data from the THCRIC registry.

Authors:  Hamid Reza Poorhoseini; Seyed Ebrahim Kassaian; Kianoosh Hoseini; Sepideh Saroukhani; Mojtaba Salarifar; Mohammad Alidoosti; Ebrahim Nematipour; Ali Mohammad Haji-Zeinali; Alireza Amirzadegan; Mir Hossein Seyyed Mohammadzadeh; Kamal Khadem Vatan; Hassan Aghajani; Mahmood Sheikh Fathollahi; Hamidreza Farrokh-Eslamlou
Journal:  Ther Adv Cardiovasc Dis       Date:  2016-02-07

Review 4.  Coronary stent choice in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

Authors:  Giulio G Stefanini; Stephan Windecker
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 2.931

5.  One-year clinical outcomes of BioMatrix™-Biolimus A9™ eluting stent: the e-BioMatrix multicenter post marketing surveillance registry in India.

Authors:  Ashwin B Mehta; Praveen Chandra; Jamshed Dalal; Prabhakar Shetty; Devang Desai; K Chocklingam; Jayesh Prajapati; Pramod Kumar; Vilas Magarkar; Apurva Vasawada; B K Goyal; Viveka Kumar; V Suryaprakash Rao; Ramesh Babu; Pritesh Parikh; Upendra Kaul; Aruna Patil; Tushar Mhetre; Hrishikesh Rangnekar
Journal:  Indian Heart J       Date:  2013-09-23

Review 6.  Recent developments in drug-eluting stents.

Authors:  Yue Li; Ravinay Bhindi; Levon M Khachigian
Journal:  J Mol Med (Berl)       Date:  2011-01-29       Impact factor: 4.599

7.  Optical coherence tomographic comparison of neointimal coverage between sirolimus- and resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents at 9 months after stent implantation.

Authors:  Jung-Sun Kim; Jin-Sun Kim; Dong-Ho Shin; Byeong-Keuk Kim; Young-Guk Ko; Donghoon Choi; Yangsoo Jang; Myeong-Ki Hong
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2011-08-21       Impact factor: 2.357

8.  Zotarolimus-eluting stent utilization in small-vessel coronary artery disease (ZEUS).

Authors:  Man-Hong Jim; Kai-Hang Yiu; Raymond Chi-Yan Fung; Hee-Hwa Ho; Andrew Kei-Yan Ng; Chung-Wah Siu; Wing-Hing Chow
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2013-02-24       Impact factor: 2.037

Review 9.  Optimal revascularization for complex coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Javaid Iqbal; Patrick W Serruys; David P Taggart
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2013-09-17       Impact factor: 32.419

10.  Clinical, angiographic and procedural characteristics of longitudinal stent deformation.

Authors:  A Guler; Y Guler; E Acar; S M Aung; S C Efe; A Kilicgedik; C Y Karabay; S Barutcu; M K Tigen; S Pala; A İzgi; A M Esen; C Kirma
Journal:  Int J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2016-05-19       Impact factor: 2.357

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.