JACC. Cardiovascular interventions · 2010
Improved late clinical safety with zotarolimus-eluting stents compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with de novo coronary lesions: 3-year follow-up from the ENDEAVOR IV (Randomized Comparison of Zotarolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease) trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Leon Martin B, Nikolsky Eugenia, Cutlip Donald E, Mauri Laura, Liberman Henry, Wilson Hadley, Patterson John, Moses Jeffrey, Kandzari David E, ENDEAVOR IV Investigators
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The increased frequency of very late (>1 year) stent thrombosis (VLST) has raised concerns with regard to the safety of sirolimus-eluting stents and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES).
BACKGROUND: Experimental and preliminary clinical findings with the zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) have suggested a favorable safety profile.
METHODS: The ENDEAVOR IV (Randomized Comparison of Zotarolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease) trial is a single-blind randomized ZES versus PES clinical trial in 1,548 patients with de novo native coronary lesions; the primary end point-9-month target vessel failure-was previously reported, annual clinical follow-up is planned for 5 years, and this report describes the 3-year outcomes.
RESULTS: The ZES compared with PES reduced target vessel failure (12.3% vs. 15.9%, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58 to 1.00, p = 0.049), myocardial infarctions (MI) (2.1% vs. 4.9%, HR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.80, p = 0.005), and cardiac death plus MI (3.6% vs. 7.1%, HR: 0.52, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.82, p = 0.004). Although the overall 3-year rate of Academic Research Consortium definite/probable stent thrombosis did not differ significantly (1.1% vs. 1.7%, HR: 0.67, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.64, p = 0.380), VLST (between 1 and 3 years) was significantly reduced in ZES patients (1 event vs. 11 events; 0.1% vs. 1.6%, HR: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.71, p = 0.004). Ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization at 3 years was similar with ZES versus PES (6.5% vs. 6.1%, HR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.73 to 1.65, p = 0.662).
CONCLUSIONS: Three-year follow-up results from the ENDEAVOR IV trial indicate similar antirestenosis efficacy but improved clinical safety associated with ZES compared with PES, due to significantly fewer peri-procedural and remote MIs associated with fewer VLST events. (A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Medtronic Endeavor Drug [ABT-578] Eluting Coronary Stent System Versus the Taxus Paclitaxel-Eluting Coronary Stent System in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT00217269).
BACKGROUND: Experimental and preliminary clinical findings with the zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) have suggested a favorable safety profile.
METHODS: The ENDEAVOR IV (Randomized Comparison of Zotarolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease) trial is a single-blind randomized ZES versus PES clinical trial in 1,548 patients with de novo native coronary lesions; the primary end point-9-month target vessel failure-was previously reported, annual clinical follow-up is planned for 5 years, and this report describes the 3-year outcomes.
RESULTS: The ZES compared with PES reduced target vessel failure (12.3% vs. 15.9%, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58 to 1.00, p = 0.049), myocardial infarctions (MI) (2.1% vs. 4.9%, HR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.80, p = 0.005), and cardiac death plus MI (3.6% vs. 7.1%, HR: 0.52, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.82, p = 0.004). Although the overall 3-year rate of Academic Research Consortium definite/probable stent thrombosis did not differ significantly (1.1% vs. 1.7%, HR: 0.67, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.64, p = 0.380), VLST (between 1 and 3 years) was significantly reduced in ZES patients (1 event vs. 11 events; 0.1% vs. 1.6%, HR: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.71, p = 0.004). Ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization at 3 years was similar with ZES versus PES (6.5% vs. 6.1%, HR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.73 to 1.65, p = 0.662).
CONCLUSIONS: Three-year follow-up results from the ENDEAVOR IV trial indicate similar antirestenosis efficacy but improved clinical safety associated with ZES compared with PES, due to significantly fewer peri-procedural and remote MIs associated with fewer VLST events. (A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Medtronic Endeavor Drug [ABT-578] Eluting Coronary Stent System Versus the Taxus Paclitaxel-Eluting Coronary Stent System in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT00217269).
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AgedAngioplasty, Balloon, CoronaryCardiovascular AgentsCoronary RestenosisCoronary StenosisDrug-Eluting StentsFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial InfarctionPaclitaxelPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsProportional Hazards ModelsProspective StudiesProsthesis DesignRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSingle-Blind MethodSirolimusThrombosisTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeUnited States