OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the unrestricted use of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether there are differences in safety and efficacy between EES and SES during long-term follow-up. METHODS: Using propensity score matching, clinical outcome was compared among 1,342 propensity score-matched pairs of patients treated with EES and SES. The primary outcome was a composite of death, MI, and target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 1.5 years with a maximum of 3 years. The primary outcome occurred in 14.9% of EES- and 18.0% of SES-treated patients up to 3 years (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68 to 1.00, p = 0.056). All-cause mortality (6.0% vs. 6.5%, HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.25, p = 0.59) was similar, risks of myocardial infarction (MI) (3.3% vs. 5.0%, HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.92, p = 0.017), and target vessel revascularization (7.0% vs. 9.6%, HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.99, p = 0.039) were lower with EES than SES. Definite stent thrombosis (ST) (HR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.75, p = 0.01) was less frequent among patients treated with EES. The reduced rate of MI with EES was explained in part by the lower risk of definite ST and the corresponding decrease in events associated with ST (HR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.75, p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: The unrestricted use of EES appears to be associated with improved clinical long-term outcome compared with SES. Differences in favor of EES are driven in part by a lower risk of MI associated with ST. 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the unrestricted use of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether there are differences in safety and efficacy between EES and SES during long-term follow-up. METHODS: Using propensity score matching, clinical outcome was compared among 1,342 propensity score-matched pairs of patients treated with EES and SES. The primary outcome was a composite of death, MI, and target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 1.5 years with a maximum of 3 years. The primary outcome occurred in 14.9% of EES- and 18.0% of SES-treated patients up to 3 years (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68 to 1.00, p = 0.056). All-cause mortality (6.0% vs. 6.5%, HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.25, p = 0.59) was similar, risks of myocardial infarction (MI) (3.3% vs. 5.0%, HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.92, p = 0.017), and target vessel revascularization (7.0% vs. 9.6%, HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.99, p = 0.039) were lower with EES than SES. Definite stent thrombosis (ST) (HR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.75, p = 0.01) was less frequent among patients treated with EES. The reduced rate of MI with EES was explained in part by the lower risk of definite ST and the corresponding decrease in events associated with ST (HR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.75, p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: The unrestricted use of EES appears to be associated with improved clinical long-term outcome compared with SES. Differences in favor of EES are driven in part by a lower risk of MI associated with ST. 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Marco Valgimigli; Manel Sabaté; Christoph Kaiser; Salvatore Brugaletta; Jose Maria de la Torre Hernandez; Soeren Galatius; Angel Cequier; Franz Eberli; Adam de Belder; Patrick W Serruys; Giuseppe Ferrante Journal: BMJ Date: 2014-11-04
Authors: Shigeru Saito; Mitchell W Krucoff; Shigeru Nakamura; Roxana Mehran; Akiko Maehara; Hussein R Al-Khalidi; Stephen M Rowland; Gudaye Tasissa; Debbie Morrell; Diane Joseph; Yumiko Okaniwa; Yoshisato Shibata; Barry D Bertolet; Mark D Rothenberg; Philippe Généreux; Hiram Bezerra; David F Kong Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2018-07-07 Impact factor: 29.983