Key result
Everolimus-eluting stents were noninferior to sirolimus-eluting stents for all-cause death or myocardial infarction at 3 years (10.1% vs 11.5%; P<0.001 for noninferiority).
Why the study?
Does everolimus-eluting stent implantation reduce adverse clinical events compared to sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in all-comer patients?
RCT (n=3,196)
Open-label
randomly assigned
Yes
Does everolimus-eluting stent implantation reduce adverse clinical events compared to sirolimus-eluting stent implantation in all-comer patients?
Absolute Event Rate: 10.1% vs 11.5%
p-value: p=<0.001 for noninferiority
Everolimus-eluting stents are noninferior to sirolimus-eluting stents for safety at 3 years, but significantly reduce target-lesion failure.
Everolimus-eluting stents offer a noninferior safety profile in all-comers; reinforces their role versus sirolimus-eluting stents in randomized comparisons.
BACKGROUND: Long-term clinical outcomes of everolimus-eluting stent (EES) compared with sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) have not been evaluated fully yet, especially whether EES implantation could positively affect late adverse events reported after SES implantation occurring >1 year. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this all-comer prospective multicenter randomized open-label trial, 3196 patients were assigned randomly to implant either EES (n=1596) or SES (n=1600). At 3 years, EES was noninferior to SES on the primary safety end point (all-cause death or myocardial infarction; 10.1% versus 11.5%; noninferiority P <0.001; and superiority P=0.19). Cumulative incidence of definite stent thrombosis was low and was not significantly different between the 2 groups (0.5% versus 0.6%; P=0.81). There was no significant difference in the efficacy end point of target-lesion revascularization between the EES and SES groups (6.6% versus 7.9%; P=0.16). However, the cumulative incidence of target-lesion failure (cardiac death/target-vessel myocardial infarction/ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization) was significantly lower in the EES group than in the SES group (8.8% versus 11.4%; P=0.01). By a landmark analysis at 1 year, the cumulative incidence of very late stent thrombosis and late target-lesion revascularization was not significantly different between the 2 groups (0.2% versus 0.2%; P=0.99 and 2.2% versus 2.9%; P=0.21, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety outcomes for this trial after EES implantation remained comparable with those after SES implantation through 3-year follow-up. However, improvement of clinical outcome after EES implantation compared with SES implantation was suggested by the significantly lower cumulative incidences of target-lesion failure, which has been the most widely used primary end point in the stent-versus-stent trials. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035450.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shiomi et al. (2014) conducted an RCT in Coronary artery disease requiring stent implantation (n=3,196). Everolimus-eluting stent (EES) vs. Sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) was evaluated on All-cause death or myocardial infarction (p=<0.001 for noninferiority). Everolimus-eluting stents were noninferior to sirolimus-eluting stents for all-cause death or myocardial infarction at 3 years (10.1% vs 11.5%; P<0.001 for noninferiority).
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: