Key result
Everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents demonstrated similar 3-year rates of target lesion failure (4.82% vs. 4.12%; RR 1.16, p=0.62) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
Why the study?
Does everolimus-eluting stents reduce target lesion failure in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention compared to sirolimus-eluting stents?
RCT (n=1,443)
3:1
Yes
Does everolimus-eluting stents reduce target lesion failure in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention compared to sirolimus-eluting stents?
Relative Risk: 1.16 (95% CI 0.65–2.06)
Absolute Event Rate: 4.82% vs 4.12%
p-value: p=0.62
In patients undergoing PCI, everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents had similar 3-year efficacy, but everolimus-eluting stents were associated with a significantly lower rate of all-cause death.
Similar TLF rates with EES and SES support clinical equivalence; confirms comparable 3-year efficacy in PCI.
BACKGROUND: Everolimus-eluting stents (EES) have equivalent short-term angiographic and clinical outcomes to sirolimus-eluting stents (SES), but EES may be superior to SES with regard to long-term clinical safety. We report the 3-year clinical outcomes of EES and SES from the prospective EXCELLENT Randomized Trial (NCT00698607). METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomly assigned 1,443 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention 3:1 to receive EES and SES, respectively. We investigated endpoints including target lesion failure (TLF) and individual clinical outcomes including stent thrombosis (ST) at 3 years. For EES and SES, the TLF rate was 4.82% and 4.12% (risk ratio [RR], 1.16, 95% CI: 0.65-2.06, P=0.62), respectively. Results were similar in other efficacy endpoints including target lesion revascularization. For safety endpoints, rate of all-cause death was significantly lower for EES (1.67%) than SES (3.57%; RR, 0.46; 95% CI: 0.23-0.94, P=0.03), while the incidence of cardiac death or myocardial infarction was numerically lower in EES. On 1-year landmark analysis, rates of all-cause death and major adverse cardiovascular events were significantly lower for EES than SES. Definite or probable ST was numerically 3-fold higher for SES (1.37%) compared with EES (0.46%). CONCLUSIONS: EES and SES had similar efficacy with regard to 3-year outcomes in the EXCELLENT trial, while delayed safety events all trended to favor EES.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2017) conducted an RCT in Coronary artery disease requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (n=1,443). Everolimus-eluting stents vs. Sirolimus-eluting stents was evaluated on Target lesion failure (TLF) at 3 years (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.65-2.06, p=0.62). Everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents demonstrated similar 3-year rates of target lesion failure (4.82% vs. 4.12%; RR 1.16, p=0.62) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: