No abstract

BackgroundIn this study we compared the outcomes of the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) versus the zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) in patients treated at a tertiary medical center, with up to one year of follow-up.MethodsUnselected consecutive patients were retrospectively recruited following stenting with the ZES (n = 197) or EES (n = 190). The first 100 consecutive patients in each cohort underwent syntax scoring. The primary endpoint of the study was target vessel failure, defined as the combined endpoint of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Secondary endpoints included target lesion revascularization, target lesion failure, acute stent thrombosis, total death, cardiac death, and non-fatal myocardial infarction.ResultsThe two groups were similar, including for Syntax scores (19.6 ± 12.8 versus 20.6 ± 13.6), number of stents per patient (2.9 ± 1.9 versus 2.9 ± 2.1), and cardiovascular risk factors. By one year, the primary outcome occurred in 20.8% EES versus 26.7% ZES (P = 0.19) patients. The secondary endpoints were as follows: target lesion revascularization (8.9% versus 20.6%, P = 0.003), target vessel revascularization (18.9% versus 25.6%, P = 0.142), definite and probable stent thrombosis (0% versus 2.5%), non-fatal myocardial infarction (2.7% versus 3.6%), and mortality (3.2% versus 5.1%) for the EES versus the ZES, respectively.ConclusionEES had similar target vessel failure to ZES, but superior target lesion revascularization and target lesion failure at one year of follow-up in an unselected cohort of patients.

In this study, we compare the outcomes of the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) versus the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) treated patients at a tertiary medical center and up to 2 years follow-up. Unselected consecutive patients were retrospectively recruited following stenting with PES (159 patients) or EES (189 patients). The primary endpoint of the study was target lesion failure (TLF), defined as the combined endpoint of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), or target lesion revascularization (TLR). Secondary endpoints included target vessel revascularization (TVR), TLR, target vessel failure (TVF), acute stent thrombosis (ST), total death, cardiac death, and nonfatal MI. Patients treated with the PES stent had less congestive heart failure and restenotic lesions, but a higher prevalence of longer lesions, nonleft main bifurcations, required more stents per patient (4.3 ± 2.8 vs. 2.9 ± 2.1). TLF occurred in 32.3% PES versus 21.5% EES (p = 0.027). The secondary unadjusted endpoints for PES versus EES, respectively, were TVF 38.6 versus 30.7% (p = 0.140), TVR 35.7 versus 26.5% (p = 0.079), definite and probable ST 1.2 versus 0.0%, nonfatal MI 4.5 versus 4.2%, and mortality 9.6 versus 4.0%. Logistic regression analysis showed that the numbers of stents per patient (p = 0.001), age (p = 0.01), and renal failure (p = 0.045) were independent predictors of TLF. Using univariate analysis, EES had lower TLF than PES in a cohort of unselected patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention at 2 years follow-up. Multivariate analysis showed that the numbers of stents per patient, age, and renal failure, but not stent type, were predictors of TLF.

No abstract

No abstract