Key result
Ridaforolimus-eluting stents were noninferior to zotarolimus-eluting stents for target lesion failure at 12 months (5.4% vs 5.4%; P=0.001 for noninferiority).
Why the study?
Does ridaforolimus-eluting stents reduce target lesion failure compared to zotarolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
RCT (n=1,919)
1:1
Yes
Does ridaforolimus-eluting stents reduce target lesion failure compared to zotarolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Absolute Event Rate: 5.4% vs 5.4%
p-value: p=0.001 for noninferiority
Ridaforolimus-eluting stents are noninferior to zotarolimus-eluting stents regarding target lesion failure at 12 months in a broad population of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
Supports ridaforolimus-eluting stents as a viable PCI alternative; extends contemporary drug-eluting stent options with confirmed noninferiority.
Background: The safety and efficacy of a novel cobalt alloy-based coronary stent with a durable elastomeric polymer eluting the antiproliferative agent ridaforolimus for treatment of patients with coronary artery disease is undetermined. Methods: A prospective, international 1:1 randomized trial was conducted to evaluate in a noninferiority design the relative safety and efficacy of ridaforolimus-eluting stents (RESs) and slow-release zotarolimus-eluting stents among 1919 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention at 76 centers. Inclusion criteria allowed enrollment of patients with recent myocardial infarction, total occlusions, bifurcations lesions, and other complex conditions. Results: Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between the groups. Overall, mean age was 63.4 years, 32.5% had diabetes mellitus, and 39.7% presented with acute coronary syndromes. At 12 months, the primary end point of target lesion failure (composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization) was 5.4% for both devices (upper bound of 1-sided 95% confidence interval 1.8%, P noninferiority =0.001). Definite/probable stent thrombosis rates were low in both groups (0.4% RES versus 0.6% zotarolimus-eluting stent, P =0.75); 13-month angiographic in-stent late lumen loss was 0.22±0.41 mm and 0.23±0.39 mm ( P noninferiority =0.004) for the RES and zotarolimus-eluting stent groups, respectively, and intravascular ultrasound percent neointimal hyperplasia was 8.10±5.81 and 8.85±7.77, respectively ( P noninferiority =0.01). Conclusions: In the present trial, which allowed broad inclusion criteria, the novel RESs met the prespecified criteria for noninferiority compared with zotarolimus-eluting stents for the primary end point of target lesion failure at 12 months and had similar measures of late lumen loss. These findings support the safety and efficacy of RESs in patients who are representative of clinical practice. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01995487.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kandzari et al. (2017) conducted an RCT in Coronary artery disease (n=1,919). Ridaforolimus-eluting stents vs. Slow-release zotarolimus-eluting stents was evaluated on Target lesion failure (composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization) (p=0.001 for noninferiority). Ridaforolimus-eluting stents were noninferior to zotarolimus-eluting stents for target lesion failure at 12 months (5.4% vs 5.4%; P=0.001 for noninferiority).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: