OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of the Xience V (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) everolimus-eluting stent (EES) with the Taxus Liberté (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) at 2-year follow-up. BACKGROUND: COMPARE (Comparison of the everolimus eluting XIENCE-V stent with the paclitaxel eluting TAXUS LIBERTÉ stent in all-comers: a randomized open label trial) demonstrated a superior clinical outcome of EES over PES at 1 year in all comers. Whether this superiority is maintained after discontinuation, at 12 months, of dual antiplatelet therapy is unclear. METHODS:Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with limited exclusion criteria were randomly allocated to EES or PES. The 2-year pre-specified endpoints are composites of safety and efficacy and stent thrombosis. RESULTS: Follow-up was completed in 1,795 of 1,800 patients (99.7%). The groups had similar baseline characteristics. At 2 years, significantly fewer EES patients took dual antiplatelet therapy (11.4% vs. 15.4%, p = 0.02). The primary composite of all death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization occurred in 9.0% of EES patients and 13.7% of PES patients (relative risk [RR]: 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.50 to 0.86) driven by a lower rate of myocardial infarction (3.9% vs. 7.5%; RR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.77) and target vessel revascularization (3.2% vs. 8.0%; RR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.62), in parallel with a lower rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis (0.9% vs. 3.9%; RR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.49). Differences significantly increased between 1- and 2-year follow-up for the primary composite endpoint (p = 0.04), target vessel revascularization (p = 0.02), and definite or probable stent thrombosis (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The substantial clinical benefit of the EES over the PES with regard to measures of both safety and efficacy is maintained at 2 years in real-life practice with an increasing benefit in terms of safety and efficacy between 1 year and 2 years.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of the Xience V (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) everolimus-eluting stent (EES) with the Taxus Liberté (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) at 2-year follow-up. BACKGROUND: COMPARE (Comparison of the everolimus eluting XIENCE-V stent with the paclitaxel eluting TAXUS LIBERTÉ stent in all-comers: a randomized open label trial) demonstrated a superior clinical outcome of EES over PES at 1 year in all comers. Whether this superiority is maintained after discontinuation, at 12 months, of dual antiplatelet therapy is unclear. METHODS:Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with limited exclusion criteria were randomly allocated to EES or PES. The 2-year pre-specified endpoints are composites of safety and efficacy and stent thrombosis. RESULTS: Follow-up was completed in 1,795 of 1,800 patients (99.7%). The groups had similar baseline characteristics. At 2 years, significantly fewer EES patients took dual antiplatelet therapy (11.4% vs. 15.4%, p = 0.02). The primary composite of all death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization occurred in 9.0% of EES patients and 13.7% of PES patients (relative risk [RR]: 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.50 to 0.86) driven by a lower rate of myocardial infarction (3.9% vs. 7.5%; RR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.77) and target vessel revascularization (3.2% vs. 8.0%; RR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.62), in parallel with a lower rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis (0.9% vs. 3.9%; RR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.49). Differences significantly increased between 1- and 2-year follow-up for the primary composite endpoint (p = 0.04), target vessel revascularization (p = 0.02), and definite or probable stent thrombosis (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The substantial clinical benefit of the EES over the PES with regard to measures of both safety and efficacy is maintained at 2 years in real-life practice with an increasing benefit in terms of safety and efficacy between 1 year and 2 years.
Authors: Alessandro Alberti; Pietro Giudice; Alessandra Gelera; Luca Stefanini; Virginia Priest; Michael Simmonds; Christa Lee; Matthew Wasserman Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2015-02-11
Authors: Fumiyuki Otsuka; Marc Vorpahl; Masataka Nakano; Jason Foerst; John B Newell; Kenichi Sakakura; Robert Kutys; Elena Ladich; Aloke V Finn; Frank D Kolodgie; Renu Virmani Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-10-25 Impact factor: 29.690