American heart journal · 2013
Everolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: final 3-year results of the Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Brener Sorin J, Kereiakes Dean J, Simonton Charles A, Rizvi Ali, Newman William, Mastali Kourosh, Wang John C, Caputo Ronald, Smith Robert S, Ying Shih-Wa, Cutlip Donald E, Stone Gregg W
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: We compared the outcomes of patients treated with everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) at 3 years from the large-scale randomized SPIRIT IV trial.
BACKGROUND: SPIRIT IV is the largest randomized trial comparing the outcomes of EES and PES. The present report represents the final long-term follow-up analysis from this study.
METHODS: A total of 3,687 patients were randomized 2:1 to EES or PES, stratified by presence of diabetes mellitus and lesion characteristics. Prespecified subgroups were compared for interaction with stent allocation. The primary end point was target lesion failure (TLF) (the composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization).
RESULTS: At 3 years, TLF occurred in 9.2% versus 11.7% of EES- and PES-treated patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78 [0.63-0.97], P = .02). The incidence of death or MI was 5.9% versus 9.1%, respectively (HR 0.67 [0.52-0.85], P = .001), and there was a 64% reduction in stent thrombosis (Academic Research Consortium definite or probable definition) with EES (0.59% vs 1.60%, HR 0.36 [0.18-0.72], P = .003). The difference in target lesion revascularization at 3 years did not reach statistical significance (6.2% vs 7.8%, respectively, HR 0.78 [0.60-1.01], P = .06). There was no significant interaction between treatment allocation and any of the subgroups, including diabetes.
CONCLUSIONS: When compared with PES, EES provides durable and significant reduction in TLF, especially due to its enhanced safety profile, with lower rates of death or MI and stent thrombosis up to 3 years.
BACKGROUND: SPIRIT IV is the largest randomized trial comparing the outcomes of EES and PES. The present report represents the final long-term follow-up analysis from this study.
METHODS: A total of 3,687 patients were randomized 2:1 to EES or PES, stratified by presence of diabetes mellitus and lesion characteristics. Prespecified subgroups were compared for interaction with stent allocation. The primary end point was target lesion failure (TLF) (the composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization).
RESULTS: At 3 years, TLF occurred in 9.2% versus 11.7% of EES- and PES-treated patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78 [0.63-0.97], P = .02). The incidence of death or MI was 5.9% versus 9.1%, respectively (HR 0.67 [0.52-0.85], P = .001), and there was a 64% reduction in stent thrombosis (Academic Research Consortium definite or probable definition) with EES (0.59% vs 1.60%, HR 0.36 [0.18-0.72], P = .003). The difference in target lesion revascularization at 3 years did not reach statistical significance (6.2% vs 7.8%, respectively, HR 0.78 [0.60-1.01], P = .06). There was no significant interaction between treatment allocation and any of the subgroups, including diabetes.
CONCLUSIONS: When compared with PES, EES provides durable and significant reduction in TLF, especially due to its enhanced safety profile, with lower rates of death or MI and stent thrombosis up to 3 years.