UNLABELLED: Percutaneous coronary intervention is the most commonly performed method of revascularizing obstructive coronary artery disease. The impact of stent strut design on clinical outcomes remains unclear. The Endeavour Resolute (ER-ZES) and the Resolute Integrity (RI-ZES) zotarolimus-eluting stents utilize identical polymers and anti-proliferative agents, differing only in their respective strut design. This study assessed the comparative safety and efficacy of these two stents in unrestricted contemporary real-world practice. METHODS: A total of 542 patients were identified, corresponding to 340 ER-ZES and 480 RI-ZES. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined by a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke. Secondary endpoints included post-procedural length of stay, in-stent restenosis, target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, coronary artery bypass grafting and stent thrombosis. RESULTS: MACE occurred in 3.2% of the ER-ZES cohort and 5.0% of the RI-ZES cohort (p= 0.43). Adjusted analysis utilizing propensity score-adjusted odds ratio for MACE, was 1.37 (95% CI 0.46-4.07, p=0.57). The mortality rate (0.9% ER-ZES vs. 1.9% RI-ZES, p=0.59), non-fatal MI (2.3% ER-ZES vs. 3.1% RI-ZES, p=0.75) and stroke (0.0% ER-ZES vs. 0.3% RI-ZES, p=0.85) were not different. Additionally, there was no difference in any of secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical performance and safety of both ER-ZES and RI-ZES were not statistically different, despite differences in stent strut design.
UNLABELLED: Percutaneous coronary intervention is the most commonly performed method of revascularizing obstructive coronary artery disease. The impact of stent strut design on clinical outcomes remains unclear. The Endeavour Resolute (ER-ZES) and the Resolute Integrity (RI-ZES) zotarolimus-eluting stents utilize identical polymers and anti-proliferative agents, differing only in their respective strut design. This study assessed the comparative safety and efficacy of these two stents in unrestricted contemporary real-world practice. METHODS: A total of 542 patients were identified, corresponding to 340 ER-ZES and 480 RI-ZES. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined by a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke. Secondary endpoints included post-procedural length of stay, in-stent restenosis, target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, coronary artery bypass grafting and stent thrombosis. RESULTS: MACE occurred in 3.2% of the ER-ZES cohort and 5.0% of the RI-ZES cohort (p= 0.43). Adjusted analysis utilizing propensity score-adjusted odds ratio for MACE, was 1.37 (95% CI 0.46-4.07, p=0.57). The mortality rate (0.9% ER-ZES vs. 1.9% RI-ZES, p=0.59), non-fatal MI (2.3% ER-ZES vs. 3.1% RI-ZES, p=0.75) and stroke (0.0% ER-ZES vs. 0.3% RI-ZES, p=0.85) were not different. Additionally, there was no difference in any of secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical performance and safety of both ER-ZES and RI-ZES were not statistically different, despite differences in stent strut design.