BACKGROUND: Whether ZES can further improve angiographic and clinical outcomes compared to SES still remains uncertain. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) compared with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). METHODS: Major electronic information sources were explored for randomized controlled trials comparing ZES with SES among patients undergoing PCI during at least 9 months follow-up. The primary efficacy outcomes were target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE); safety outcomes were stent thrombosis (ST), myocardial infarction (MI), and cardiac death. RESULTS: Seven comparative studies were identified (a total of 5983 patients). When compared with ZES at 12-month follow-up, SES significantly reduced risk of MACE (relative risk [RR]: 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61 to 0.89, p=0.002), and TLR (RR:0.39; 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.52; p<0.00001), without significant differences in terms of TVR (RR:0.68, 95% CI: 0.38 to 1.20; p=0.18), ST (RR:0.71; 95% CI: 0.39 to 1.31; p=0.28), cardiac death (RR:0.83; 95% CI: 0.49-1.42, p=0.50) or MI (RR:1.08; 95%CI: 0.80 to 1.45; p=0.62). CONCLUSIONS: At 12-month follow-up, SES are superior to ZES in reducing the incidences of TLR and MACE in patients undergoing PCI, without significant differences in terms of TVR, ST, cardiac death, and MI.
BACKGROUND: Whether ZES can further improve angiographic and clinical outcomes compared to SES still remains uncertain. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) compared with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). METHODS: Major electronic information sources were explored for randomized controlled trials comparing ZES with SES among patients undergoing PCI during at least 9 months follow-up. The primary efficacy outcomes were target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE); safety outcomes were stent thrombosis (ST), myocardial infarction (MI), and cardiac death. RESULTS: Seven comparative studies were identified (a total of 5983 patients). When compared with ZES at 12-month follow-up, SES significantly reduced risk of MACE (relative risk [RR]: 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61 to 0.89, p=0.002), and TLR (RR:0.39; 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.52; p<0.00001), without significant differences in terms of TVR (RR:0.68, 95% CI: 0.38 to 1.20; p=0.18), ST (RR:0.71; 95% CI: 0.39 to 1.31; p=0.28), cardiac death (RR:0.83; 95% CI: 0.49-1.42, p=0.50) or MI (RR:1.08; 95%CI: 0.80 to 1.45; p=0.62). CONCLUSIONS: At 12-month follow-up, SES are superior to ZES in reducing the incidences of TLR and MACE in patients undergoing PCI, without significant differences in terms of TVR, ST, cardiac death, and MI.
Authors: Eliano Pio Navarese; Mariusz Kowalewski; David Kandzari; Alexandra Lansky; Bartosz Górny; Lukasz Kołtowski; Ron Waksman; Sergio Berti; Giuseppe Musumeci; Ugo Limbruno; Rene J van der Schaaf; Malte Kelm; Jacek Kubica; Harry Suryapranata Journal: Open Heart Date: 2014-08-21