Key result
Everolimus-eluting stents cut 1-year major cardiovascular events ~43% vs. paclitaxel-eluting stents in small vessel disease.
Why the study?
Higher rates of adverse cardiac events have been observed in patients with small vessel disease, motivating comparison of everolimus-eluting stents versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in this population.
RCT (n=4,689)
2:1
Yes
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support EES preference in small-vessel PCI; extends RCT subgroup data but remains hypothesis-generating.
BACKGROUND: Higher rates of adverse cardiac events have been observed in patients with small vessel disease. Therefore, we compared an everolimus-eluting stent (EES) to a paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) for treatment of small (reference vessel diameter: RVD <2.5 mm) and larger vessels (≥2.5 mm) in a pooled analysis from the SPIRIT III (n = 1,002) and SPIRIT IV (n = 3,687) trials (randomized 2:1, EES vs. PES). METHODS: Data of 4,689 total patients were pooled for a patient level analysis. Lesion length, RVD, and percent diabetics were matched between stent types. EES versus PES performance was evaluated at 1 year in patients with small (n = 1,019) and larger vessels (n = 2,586) who had a single lesion treated. RESULTS: Mean RVD assessed by quantitative coronary angiography in patients with small vessels was 2.24 ± 0.19 and 2.25 ± 0.20 mm in the EES and PES groups, respectively. At 1 year, EES compared to PES in small vessel patients significantly reduced major adverse cardiac events (4.5% vs. 7.9%, P = 0.04), target lesion failure (4.4% vs. 7.9%, P = 0.03), target lesion revascularization (2.4% vs. 5.5%, P = 0.02), and stent thrombosis (0.2% vs. 1.2%, P = 0.04). Relative benefits of EES versus PES were comparable in small and larger vessels (P interaction > 0.05), although the absolute benefits were greater in patients with small vessel disease. CONCLUSION: In high-risk patients requiring percutaneous coronary intervention in small coronary arteries, EES results in significantly improved 1-year rates of event-free survival compared to PES, with evidence present for both enhanced safety and efficacy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ito et al. (2011) conducted an RCT in Coronary artery disease requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (n=4,689). Everolimus-eluting stent (EES) vs. Paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) was evaluated on Major adverse cardiac events in patients with small vessels (p=0.04). In patients with small vessel disease, everolimus-eluting stents reduced 1-year major adverse cardiac events compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: