Why the study?
Do everolimus-eluting stents reduce the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients presenting with myocardial infarction?
Do everolimus-eluting stents reduce the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients presenting with myocardial infarction?
In patients presenting with myocardial infarction, everolimus-eluting stents demonstrated superior safety and efficacy at two years compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents, significantly reducing the composite of mortality, MI, and target vessel revascularisation.
Supports EES over PES in MI; extends prior RCT comparisons to acute presentations.
AIMS: Although large clinical trials have shown that everolimus-eluting stents (EES) significantly reduce target vessel revascularisation (TVR), myocardial infarction (MI) and stent thrombosis (ST) compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in diverse populations, there is a paucity of data comparing EES and PES in patients presenting with MI. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a post hoc subgroup analysis on COMPARE, an all-comer trial comparing EES to PES. We identified 863 patients (EES=434, PES=429 treated for MI: 452 ST-elevation MI (STEMI) and 411 non ST-elevation MI (NSTEMI). EES was associated with a significant reduction in the primary endpoint, a composite of all-cause mortality, MI, and TVR, at two years (RR=0.57; 95% CI: 0.40-0.83, p=0.002). While the effect was more marked in the STEMI (RR=0.51; 95% CI: 0.30-0.87, p=0.01) than the NSTEMI subgroup (RR=0.65; 95% CI: 0.39-1.08, p=0.09), the interaction p-value (0.5) suggests that a difference in treatment effect between presentations is unlikely. ST rates were significantly lower with EES (RR=0.30; 95% CI: 0.12-0.73, p=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: At two years, EES results are superior to PES in terms of safety and efficacy endpoints in treatment of MI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kedhi et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: