Hemal Gada1, Ajay J Kirtane1, William Newman2, Mark Sanz3, James B Hermiller4, Kenneth W Mahaffey5, Donald E Cutlip6, Krishnankutty Sudhir7, Liming Hou7, Kai Koo7, Gregg W Stone8. 1. Columbia University Medical Center/New York Presbyterian Hospital and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, New York. 2. Wake Medical Center, Raleigh, North Carolina. 3. St. Patrick Hospital, Missoula, Montana. 4. The Heart Center of Indiana, Indianapolis, Indiana. 5. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina. 6. Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California. 8. Columbia University Medical Center/New York Presbyterian Hospital and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, New York. Electronic address: gs2184@columbia.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in patients with obstructive coronary artery disease. BACKGROUND: The use of EES compared to PES has been shown to result in improved clinical outcomes in patients undergoing PCI. However, there have been concerns regarding the durability of these benefits over longer-term follow-up. METHODS: SPIRIT III was a prospective, multicenter trial in which 1,002 patients were randomized 2:1 to EES versus PES. Endpoints included ischemia-driven target vessel failure (TVF) (death, myocardial infarction (MI), or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization [TVR]), the pre-specified primary endpoint), target lesion failure (TLF) (cardiac death, target-vessel MI, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization [TLR]), major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (cardiac death, MI, or ischemia-driven TLR), their individual components and stent thrombosis. RESULTS: Five-year follow-up was available in 91.9% of patients. Treatment with EES versus PES resulted in lower 5-year Kaplan-Meier rates of TVF (19.3% vs. 24.5%, p = 0.05), TLF (12.7% vs. 19.0%, p = 0.008), and MACE (13.2% vs. 20.7%, p = 0.007). EES also resulted in reduced rates of all-cause death (5.9% vs. 10.1%, p = 0.02), with nonsignificantly different rates of MI, stent thrombosis, and TLR, and no evidence of late catch-up of TLR over time. CONCLUSIONS: At 5 years after treatment, EES compared to PES resulted in durable benefits in composite safety and efficacy measures as well as all-cause mortality. Additionally, the absolute difference in TLR between devices remained stable over time without deterioration of effect during late follow-up.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in patients with obstructive coronary artery disease. BACKGROUND: The use of EES compared to PES has been shown to result in improved clinical outcomes in patients undergoing PCI. However, there have been concerns regarding the durability of these benefits over longer-term follow-up. METHODS: SPIRIT III was a prospective, multicenter trial in which 1,002 patients were randomized 2:1 to EES versus PES. Endpoints included ischemia-driven target vessel failure (TVF) (death, myocardial infarction (MI), or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization [TVR]), the pre-specified primary endpoint), target lesion failure (TLF) (cardiac death, target-vessel MI, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization [TLR]), major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (cardiac death, MI, or ischemia-driven TLR), their individual components and stent thrombosis. RESULTS: Five-year follow-up was available in 91.9% of patients. Treatment with EES versus PES resulted in lower 5-year Kaplan-Meier rates of TVF (19.3% vs. 24.5%, p = 0.05), TLF (12.7% vs. 19.0%, p = 0.008), and MACE (13.2% vs. 20.7%, p = 0.007). EES also resulted in reduced rates of all-cause death (5.9% vs. 10.1%, p = 0.02), with nonsignificantly different rates of MI, stent thrombosis, and TLR, and no evidence of late catch-up of TLR over time. CONCLUSIONS: At 5 years after treatment, EES compared to PES resulted in durable benefits in composite safety and efficacy measures as well as all-cause mortality. Additionally, the absolute difference in TLR between devices remained stable over time without deterioration of effect during late follow-up.
Authors: Maayan Konigstein; Mahesh V Madhavan; Ori Ben-Yehuda; Hussein M Rahim; Iva Srdanovic; Fotis Gkargkoulas; Ghazaleh Mehdipoor; Evan Shlofmitz; Akiko Maehara; Björn Redfors; Ankita K Gore; Thomas McAndrew; Gregg W Stone; Ziad A Ali Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2019-04-12 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Christopher R Kelly; Paul S Teirstein; Ian T Meredith; Bruno Farah; Christophe L Dubois; Robert L Feldman; Joseph Dens; Nobuhisa Hagiwara; Abram Rabinowitz; Didier Carrié; Vincent Pompili; Alain Bouchard; Shigeru Saito; Dominic J Allocco; Keith D Dawkins; Gregg W Stone Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2017-12-11 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Gregg W Stone; Takeshi Kimura; Runlin Gao; Dean J Kereiakes; Stephen G Ellis; Yoshinobu Onuma; Bernard Chevalier; Charles Simonton; Ovidiu Dressler; Aaron Crowley; Ziad A Ali; Patrick W Serruys Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 14.676