Key result
Everolimus-eluting stents showed no significant difference in the primary composite endpoint of cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization compared to sirolimus-eluting stents at two years (10.7% vs 10.6%, HR 1.00).
Why the study?
Does the use of everolimus-eluting stents improve clinical outcomes compared to sirolimus-eluting stents in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
RCT (n=977)
Open-label
1:1 based on date of birth
No
Does the use of everolimus-eluting stents improve clinical outcomes compared to sirolimus-eluting stents in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Hazard Ratio: 1 (95% CI 0.68–1.48)
Absolute Event Rate: 10.7% vs 10.6%
p-value: p=0.990
In an all-comer PCI population, second-generation everolimus-eluting stents demonstrated comparable 2-year safety and efficacy to first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents.
Comparable safety/efficacy permits flexible stent selection in routine PCI; confirms similar outcomes in all-comer populations beyond selected cohorts.
BACKGROUND: Second generation drug-eluting stents were developed to improve the safety and efficacy of first generation stents. So far, limited long term randomized data exist comparing the second generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with first generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). METHODS: A prospective, open-label, randomized, single center trial comparing EES and SES in all-comer patients. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization. Secondary endpoints included individual components of the composite, along with target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis. RESULTS: In total, 977 patients were randomized, of which 498 patients to EES and 479 to SES. Average age was 65.2 ± 11.2 years and 71.6% of the population was male. Fifty percent of patients were treated for acute coronary syndrome, more often for ST-elevation myocardial infarctions in EES patients (13.7% vs. 9.2% in SES). In contrast, SES patients more often had prior interventions and showed more calcified lesions. Two-year follow-up was available in 98% of patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 10.7% of EES patients compared to 10.6% of SES patients (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68-1.48). Additionally, secondary endpoints were similar between groups. The rate of stent thrombosis was low for both stent types. CONCLUSION: In this all-comer population, there were no differences in endpoints between EES and SES during two-year follow-up. Stent thrombosis rates were low, supporting the safety of drug-eluting stent appliance in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: TrialRegister.nl NTR3170.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Velders et al. (2013) conducted an RCT in Coronary artery disease requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (n=977). Everolimus-eluting stents vs. Sirolimus-eluting stents was evaluated on Composite of cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68-1.48, p=0.990). Everolimus-eluting stents showed no significant difference in the primary composite endpoint of cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization compared to sirolimus-eluting stents at two years (10.7% vs 10.6%, HR 1.00).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: