Format

Send to

Choose Destination
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010 Dec;3(12):1220-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2010.07.017.

Clinical follow-up 3 years after everolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents: a pooled analysis from the SPIRIT II (A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) and SPIRIT III (A Clinical Evaluation of the Investigational Device XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [EECSS] in the Treatment of Subjects With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) randomized trials.

Author information

1
Columbia University Medical Center and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, 111 East 59th Street, New York, NY 10022, USA.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

The purpose of this study was to investigate long-term 3-year clinical outcomes of an everolimus-eluting stent (EES) versus a paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES).

BACKGROUND:

Compared with PES, EES reduced target vessel failure and major adverse cardiac events at 2 years. Whether the benefits of EES are sustained at 3 years has not been reported.

METHODS:

In the SPIRIT II (A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) and SPIRIT III (A Clinical Evaluation of the Investigational Device XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [EECSS] in the Treatment of Subjects With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) trials, 1,302 patients were randomly assigned to EES (n = 892) or PES (n = 410). We report the 3-year clinical follow-up of this patient-level pooled analysis.

RESULTS:

At 3 years, EES compared with PES resulted in a significant reduction in myocardial infarction (3.8% vs. 6.7%; relative risk [RR]: 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34 to 0.94; p = 0.04), and target lesion revascularization (6.8% vs. 12.7%; RR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.77; p = 0.001). Everolimus-eluting stents resulted in a significant reduction in target vessel failure (13.7% vs. 19.5%; RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.92; p = 0.01), and major adverse cardiac events (9.1% vs. 16.3%; RR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.76; p = 0.0004). The cumulative rates of Academic Research Consortium-defined definite or probable stent thrombosis were 1.2% in EES patients and 1.9% in PES patients (RR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.68; p = 0.43).

CONCLUSIONS:

In this patient-level pooled analysis, EES compared with PES resulted in a significant and persistent reduction in target vessel failure and major adverse cardiac events at 3 years due to fewer myocardial infarction and ischemic target lesion revascularization events, which is consistent with superior safety and efficacy of the EES platform.

TRIAL REGISTRATION:

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00180310 NCT00180479.

PMID:
21232715
DOI:
10.1016/j.jcin.2010.07.017
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center