OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare the safety and effectiveness of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus first generation drug-eluting stents (FG-DES; sirolimus-eluting stent [SES] or paclitaxel-eluting stent [PES]). METHODS: In 2,126 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), we compared the 2-year incidence of stent thrombosis (ST) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) between the EES versus FG-DES groups. Secondary end-points included all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), death or MI, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, including death, MI, ST, or TVR). Further, we evaluated these end-points in 2 propensity-matched subgroups: EES versus SES; EES versus PES. RESULTS: Complete 2-year follow-up was available in 1,911 (90%) patients. Compared to FG-DES, implantation of EES was associated with trends towards lower ST (0.9% vs. 2.8%, P = 0.068) and TVR (3.8% vs. 7.2%, P = 0.052), which persisted after adjustment for baseline differences (for ST, adjusted hazard ratio, HR 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 95% CI 0.10-1.02, P = 0.053; for TVR, HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.22-0.75, P = 0.004). Compared to SES, EES implantation was associated with lower TVR and a trend towards lower ST. Compared to PES, EES implantation was associated with less ST and TVR and trends towards lower death/MI and MACE. In the EES group, no ST was seen after the first 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: The use of EES compared to FG-DES appears to be associated with reductions in ST and TVR at 2-year follow-up. Improved outcomes with EES are observed in comparison with SES as well as PES.
OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare the safety and effectiveness of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus first generation drug-eluting stents (FG-DES; sirolimus-eluting stent [SES] or paclitaxel-eluting stent [PES]). METHODS: In 2,126 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), we compared the 2-year incidence of stent thrombosis (ST) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) between the EES versus FG-DES groups. Secondary end-points included all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), death or MI, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, including death, MI, ST, or TVR). Further, we evaluated these end-points in 2 propensity-matched subgroups: EES versus SES; EES versus PES. RESULTS: Complete 2-year follow-up was available in 1,911 (90%) patients. Compared to FG-DES, implantation of EES was associated with trends towards lower ST (0.9% vs. 2.8%, P = 0.068) and TVR (3.8% vs. 7.2%, P = 0.052), which persisted after adjustment for baseline differences (for ST, adjusted hazard ratio, HR 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 95% CI 0.10-1.02, P = 0.053; for TVR, HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.22-0.75, P = 0.004). Compared to SES, EES implantation was associated with lower TVR and a trend towards lower ST. Compared to PES, EES implantation was associated with less ST and TVR and trends towards lower death/MI and MACE. In the EES group, no ST was seen after the first 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: The use of EES compared to FG-DES appears to be associated with reductions in ST and TVR at 2-year follow-up. Improved outcomes with EES are observed in comparison with SES as well as PES.
Authors: Wolfgang Hohenforst-Schmidt; Paul Zarogoulidis; Georgia Pitsiou; Bernd Linsmeier; Drosos Tsavlis; Ioannis Kioumis; Eleni Papadaki; Lutz Freitag; Theodora Tsiouda; J Francis Turner; Robert Browning; Michael Simoff; Nikolaos Sachpekidis; Kosmas Tsakiridis; Bojan Zaric; Lonny Yarmus; Sofia Baka; Grigoris Stratakos; Harald Rittger Journal: J Cancer Date: 2016-01-13 Impact factor: 4.207