Why the study?
Comparative studies between Endeavor Resolute-ZES and Resolute Integrity-ZES during long-term follow-up periods are scarce, despite differences in platform and design.
Does the Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stent reduce major adverse cardiac events compared to the Endeavor Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent in all-comer patients undergoing PCI?
Does the Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stent reduce major adverse cardiac events compared to the Endeavor Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent in all-comer patients undergoing PCI?
The Resolute Integrity and Endeavor Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety over a 3-year follow-up in an all-comer Korean PCI cohort.
OBJECTIVE: There is a scarcity of comparative studies between Endeavor Resolute®-zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) and Resolute Integrity®-ZES (I-ZES) during long-term follow-up periods. Although the stent alloy and the polymer of these two ZESs are similar, the platform and the design of these two stents are different. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of these two different ZESs in the all-comer Korean patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during a 3-year follow-up period. METHODS: This study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. In this single-center, retrospective, and all-comer patients' cohort study, a total of 889 patients who underwent PCI with R-ZES (n=394) or I-ZES (n=495) were enrolled. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) defined as all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), any repeat revascularization including target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and non-TVR, and the secondary endpoint was stent thrombosis (ST) at 3 years. RESULTS: To adjust for any potential confounders, the propensity score-adjusted multivariable analysis was performed using the logistic regression model (C-statistics=0.689). The cumulative incidence rates of MACEs [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 1.341; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.615-2.922; p=0.461], all-cause death, nonfatal MI, any repeat revascularization, and ST (aHR, 2.090; 95% CI, 0.163-26.77; p=0.571) were similar between the two groups during the 3-year follow-up period. CONCLUSION: R-ZES and I-ZES demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety after PCI during a 3-year follow-up period. However, these results can perhaps be more precisely defined by other large and long-term follow-up studies in the future. (Anatol J Cardiol 2020; 23: 268-76).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yong Hoon Kim (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: