BACKGROUND: Everolimus-eluting stents (EES; Xience V) are among the most commonly used newer generation drug-eluting stents in clinical practice and have clearly proven superiority over paclitaxel-eluting stents. Nevertheless, the relative merits of EES against the previous gold-standard sirolimus-eluting stent (SES; Cypher) have been less extensively assessed. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of EES with SES in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified eight eligible randomized trials comparing EES with SES including 11,167 patients. The primary endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Secondary endpoints were target lesion revascularization (TLR) and the composite of definite and probable stent thrombosis. The follow-up ranged from 9 to 36 months. No heterogeneity across the trials was observed regarding the selected endpoints. There was no difference in risk of MACE (HR 0.91 [0.79-1.04]; p = 0.15), TLR (HR 0.86 [0.72-1.04]; p = 0.12) and the composite of definite and probable stent thrombosis (HR 0.84 [0.54-1.29], p = 0.42). The risk of definite stent thrombosis was significantly lower in patients receiving EES (HR 0.49 [0.27 to 0.91]; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Using the largest available dataset of patients treated in randomized trials, the present meta-analysis demonstrated that the use of EES versus SES was associated with comparable incidence of overall clinical events. However, EES may be associated with a lower risk of definite stent thrombosis.
BACKGROUND:Everolimus-eluting stents (EES; Xience V) are among the most commonly used newer generation drug-eluting stents in clinical practice and have clearly proven superiority over paclitaxel-eluting stents. Nevertheless, the relative merits of EES against the previous gold-standard sirolimus-eluting stent (SES; Cypher) have been less extensively assessed. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of EES with SES in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified eight eligible randomized trials comparing EES with SES including 11,167 patients. The primary endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Secondary endpoints were target lesion revascularization (TLR) and the composite of definite and probable stent thrombosis. The follow-up ranged from 9 to 36 months. No heterogeneity across the trials was observed regarding the selected endpoints. There was no difference in risk of MACE (HR 0.91 [0.79-1.04]; p = 0.15), TLR (HR 0.86 [0.72-1.04]; p = 0.12) and the composite of definite and probable stent thrombosis (HR 0.84 [0.54-1.29], p = 0.42). The risk of definite stent thrombosis was significantly lower in patients receiving EES (HR 0.49 [0.27 to 0.91]; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Using the largest available dataset of patients treated in randomized trials, the present meta-analysis demonstrated that the use of EES versus SES was associated with comparable incidence of overall clinical events. However, EES may be associated with a lower risk of definite stent thrombosis.
Authors: Gregg W Stone; Ali Rizvi; William Newman; Kourosh Mastali; John C Wang; Ronald Caputo; Julie Doostzadeh; Sherry Cao; Charles A Simonton; Krishnankutty Sudhir; Alexandra J Lansky; Donald E Cutlip; Dean J Kereiakes Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-05-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lisette Okkels Jensen; Per Thayssen; Hans Henrik Tilsted; Jan Ravkilde; Anders Junker; Henrik Steen Hansen; Knud Nørregaard Hansen; Knud Erik Pedersen; Henrik Toft Sørensen; Leif Thuesen; Jens Flensted Lassen Journal: Cardiology Date: 2010-06-03 Impact factor: 1.869
Authors: Adnan Kastrati; Julinda Mehilli; Jürgen Pache; Christoph Kaiser; Marco Valgimigli; Henning Kelbaek; Maurizio Menichelli; Manel Sabaté; Maarten J Suttorp; Dietrich Baumgart; Melchior Seyfarth; Matthias E Pfisterer; Albert Schömig Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-02-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Francesco Burzotta; Carlo Trani; Daniel Todaro; Luca Mariani; Giovanni Paolo Talarico; Antonella Tommasino; Maura Giammarinaro; Giampaolo Niccoli; Italo Porto; Antonio Maria Leone; Rocco Mongiardo; Mario Attilio Mazzari; Giovanni Schiavoni; Filippo Crea Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Sonja Gillen; Tibor Schuster; Christian Meyer Zum Büschenfelde; Helmut Friess; Jörg Kleeff Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2010-04-20 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Christoph Stettler; Simon Wandel; Sabin Allemann; Adnan Kastrati; Marie Claude Morice; Albert Schömig; Matthias E Pfisterer; Gregg W Stone; Martin B Leon; José Suarez de Lezo; Jean-Jacques Goy; Seung-Jung Park; Manel Sabaté; Maarten J Suttorp; Henning Kelbaek; Christian Spaulding; Maurizio Menichelli; Paul Vermeersch; Maurits T Dirksen; Pavel Cervinka; Anna Sonia Petronio; Alain J Nordmann; Peter Diem; Bernhard Meier; Marcel Zwahlen; Stephan Reichenbach; Sven Trelle; Stephan Windecker; Peter Jüni Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-09-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Giuseppe De Luca; Maurits T Dirksen; Christian Spaulding; Henning Kelbæk; Martin Schalij; Leif Thuesen; Bas van der Hoeven; Marteen A Vink; Christoph Kaiser; Carmine Musto; Tania Chechi; Gaia Spaziani; Luis Salvador Diaz de la Llera; Vincenzo Pasceri; Emilio Di Lorenzo; Roberto Violini; Harry Suryapranata; Gregg W Stone Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Tobias Härle; Uwe Zeymer; Arne Kristian Schwarz; Claus Lüers; Matthias Hochadel; Harald Darius; Wolfgang Kasper; Karl Eugen Hauptmann; Dietrich Andresen; Albrecht Elsässer Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 5.460