Zotarolimus-eluting Stents In Patients Research Articles

Comparison of ridaforolimus-eluting and zotarolimus-eluting coronary stents: 5-Year outcomes from the BIONICS and NIREUS trials

Abstract Introduction Despite similarities between different modern drug eluting stents (DES), their comparative short and long-term safety and efficacy has generated much interest and yielded conflicting results. The BIONICS and the NIREUS randomized clinical trials showed non-inferiority of the Ridaforolimus eluting stent (RES) compared to the Zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) with respect to 1-year target lesion failure (TLF) and 6-month angiographic late lumen loss. Aim To evaluate clinical outcomes between treatment groups over 5 years follow-up Methods BIONICS and NIREUS were prospective, randomized, single-blind multicenter trials comparing RES and ZES in patients undergoing PCI. Patients were blinded to treatment assignment and randomized to RES or ZES in a 1:1 fashion in BIONICS, and in 2:1 fashion in NIREUS. Clinical events were assessed during hospital stay, at 30 days, 1 year, and yearly thereafter, up to 5 years. The The primary endpoint in the current study was the 5-year rate of target lesion failure (TLF). Results The study population included 2221 patients enrolled in the BIONICS (n=1919) and NIREUS (n=302) studies. Median follow-up was 1822 days (interquartile range 1783 to 1847 days). Mean age was 63.2±10.3 years, and most patients were men (79.7%). Clinical presentation with ACS was similar between groups (38.9% versus 37.9%, RES versus ZES, respectively, p=0.38). Procedural characteristics were similar for patients treated with RES and ZES. A mean of 1.6±0.9 and 1.5±0.8 stents were implanted in RES and ZES patients, respectively, p=0.08. Post dilatation was performed more frequently in the RES group (63.3% versus 60.1%, p=0.02) and procedure duration was longer in RES versus ZES patients (47.0±31.8 minutes versus 44.6±29.2 minutes, p=0.01). Device success was high in both groups but slightly higher in the ZES group (98.2% versus 99.5% for RES and ZES, respectively, p=0.002) yet with similar procedural success (97.9% versus 97.3%, p=0.49). At 5 years, the primary endpoint of TLF was similar between treatment groups (12.2% RES versus 11.3% ZES, p=0.52). Rates of TLR (7.6% RES versus 6.8% ZES, p=0.42), target vessel-related MI (4.8% RES versus 4.9% ZES, p=0.95) and stent thrombosis (0.9% RES versus 0.9% ZES, p=0.87), also did not differ between groups. Target vessel revascularization (TVR) and cardiac death were higher among the RES group (12.3% versus 9.5% p=0.037, and 3.6% versus 2.2 % p=0.042, respectively). However, after correction for baseline characteristics there was no significant difference in cardiac death between groups. Conclusions In a pooled analysis of two randomized trials, 5-year clinical outcomes were similar between patients undergoing PCI with RES and ZES. These results support the long-term safety and efficacy of RES for the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease.Central illustrationZES vs. RES

Outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention using ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting versus thin-strut durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents in patients with comorbid peripheral arterial disease: a post-hoc analysis from two randomized trials.

In patients with peripheral arterial disease (PADs), who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), little is known about the potential impact of using different new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) on outcome. In PCI all-comers, the results of most between-stent comparisons-stratified by strut thickness-suggested some advantage of coronary stents with ultrathin-struts. The current post-hoc analysis aimed to assess outcomes of PCI with ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) vs. thin-strut durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (DP-ZES) in patients with PADs. We pooled 3-year patient-level data from two large-scale randomized all-comer trials to compare Orsiro ultrathin-strut BP-SES vs. Resolute-type thin-strut DP-ZES in trial participants with concomitant PADs. BIO-RESORT (December 2012 to August 2015) and BIONYX (October 2015 to December 2016) included all-comer patients who were aged 18 years or older, capable of providing informed consent, and required a PCI. The trials had web-based randomization, with block sizes of 4 and 8, performed in a 1:1:1 or 1:1 fashion. Assessors, research staff, and patients were blinded to the type of stent used. We assessed the composite main clinical endpoint target vessel failure [TVF: cardiac death, target vessel related myocardial infarction (MI), or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization (TVR)], its components, and stent thrombosis. Of 4,830 trial participants, 360 had PADs: 177 (49.2%) were treated with BP-SES and 183 (50.8%) with DP-ZES. Baseline characteristics were similar. For BP-SES, the 3-year TVF rate was 11.0% and for DP-ZES 17.9% [hazard ratio (HR): 0.59, 95% CI: 0.33-1.04; P=0.07]. For BP-SES, the TVR rate was lower than for DP-ZES (4.1% vs. 11.0%; HR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.15-0.86; P=0.016), but this did not translate into between-group differences in cardiac death or MI. In small vessels (<2.75 mm), the TVR rate was also lower in BP-SES (5.6% vs. 13.9%; HR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.11-0.91; P=0.024). Definite-or-probable stent thrombosis rates were 1.2% and 2.3% (P=0.43). In PCI patients with PADs, the 3-year TVF incidence was numerically lower in the ultrathin-strut BP-SES vs. the thin-strut DP-ZES group. Furthermore, TVR risk was significantly lower in ultrathin-strut BP-SES, mainly driven by a lower TVR rate in small vessels. BIO-RESORT trial: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01674803); BIONYX trial: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02508714).

One-year outcomes of polymer-free amphilimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents in patients with diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis

BackgroundDiabetes mellitus (DM) and cardiovascular diseases often co-exist. Today, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the preferred revascularization procedure for majority of patients with coronary artery disease. Polymer-free amphilimus-eluting stents (AES) represent a novel elution technology in the current era of drug-eluting stents. In this analysis, we aimed to systematically compare the cardiovascular outcomes which are associated with polymer-free amphilimus-eluting stents (AES) versus the durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) for the treatment of patients with DM.MethodsHttp://www.ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Cochrane database and Google Scholar were searched for publications comparing polymer-free AES versus durable polymer ZES in patients with DM. Selective cardiovascular outcomes were assessed. Statistical analysis was carried out by the latest version of the RevMan software. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to represent the data analysis.ResultsFour studies with a total number of 1795 participants with DM whereby 912 patients were assigned to be revascularized by the polymer-free AES and 883 patients were assigned to be revascularized by the durable polymer ZES were included in this analysis. In patients with DM, at one year, polymer-free AES were associated with significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) (RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.54–0.88; P = 0.002) and target lesion failure (TLF) (RR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.48–0.91; P = 0.01) compared to durable polymer ZES. However, there was no significant change in all-cause mortality (RR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.51–1.22; P = 0.28), cardiac death and the other cardiovascular outcomes. Similar risk of total stent thrombosis (RR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.60–2.13; P = 0.70), including definite stent thrombosis (RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.38–3.31; P = 0.84), probable stent thrombosis (RR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.37–2.09; P = 0.76), possible stent thrombosis (RR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.50–2.87; P = 0.69) and late stent thrombosis (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.17–5.72; P = 1.00) as between polymer-free AES and durable polymer ZES in patients with DM.ConclusionsAt 1 year follow-up, polymer-free AES were associated with significantly lower MACEs and TLF compared to durable polymer ZES in these patients with DM, without any increase in mortality, stent thrombosis and other cardiovascular outcomes. However, this analysis is only based on a follow-up time period of one year, therefore, future research should focus on the long term follow-up time period.

Amphilimus- vs. zotarolimus-eluting stents in patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease: the SUGAR trial.

AimPatients with diabetes mellitus are at high risk of adverse events after percutaneous revascularization, with no differences in outcomes between most contemporary drug-eluting stents. The Cre8 EVO stent releases a formulation of sirolimus with an amphiphilic carrier from laser-dug wells, and has shown clinical benefits in diabetes. We aimed to compare Cre8 EVO stents to Resolute Onyx stents (a contemporary polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stent) in patients with diabetes.Methods and resultsWe did an investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded trial at 23 sites in Spain. Eligible patients had diabetes and required percutaneous coronary intervention. A total of 1175 patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive Cre8 EVO or Resolute Onyx stents. The primary endpoint was target-lesion failure, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization at 1-year follow-up. The trial had a non-inferiority design with a 4% margin for the primary endpoint. A superiority analysis was planned if non-inferiority was confirmed. There were 106 primary events, 42 (7.2%) in the Cre8 EVO group and 64 (10.9%) in the Resolute Onyx group [hazard ratio (HR): 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44–0.96; Pnon-inferiority < 0.001; Psuperiority = 0.030]. Among the secondary endpoints, Cre8 EVO stents had significantly lower rate than Resolute Onyx stents of target-vessel failure (7.5% vs. 11.1%, HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.46–0.99; P = 0.042). Probable or definite stent thrombosis and all-cause death were not significantly different between groups.ConclusionIn patients with diabetes, Cre8 EVO stents were non-inferior to Resolute Onyx stents with regard to target-lesion failure composite outcome. An exploratory analysis for superiority at 1 year suggests that the Cre8 EVO stents might be superior to Resolute Onyx stents with regard to the same outcome.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03321032.

Five-Year Comparative Efficacy of Everolimus-Eluting vs. Resolute Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Among drug-eluting stents (DESs), the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) are widely used in clinical practice and have contributed to improve the outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Few studies addressed their long-term comparative performance in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We aimed to investigate the 5 year comparative efficacy of EES and R-ZES in ACS. We queried ACTION-ACS, a large-scale database of ACS patients undergoing PCI. The treatment groups were analyzed using propensity score matching. The primary endpoint was a composite of mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, repeat PCI, and definite or probable stent thrombosis, which was addressed at the five-year follow-up. A total of 3497 matched patients were analyzed. Compared with R-ZES, a significant reduction in the primary endpoint at 5 years was observed in patients treated with EES (hazard ratio (HR) [95%CI] = 0.62 [0.54–0.71], p < 0.001). By landmark analysis, differences between the two devices emerged after the first year and were maintained thereafter. The individual endpoints of mortality (HR [95%CI] = 0.70 [0.58–0.84], p < 0.01), MI (HR [95%CI] = 0.55 [0.42–0.74], p < 0.001), and repeat PCI (HR [95%CI] = 0.65 [0.53–0.73], p < 0.001) were all significantly lower in the EES-treated patients. Stroke risk did not differ between EES and R-ZES. In ACS, a greater long-term clinical efficacy with EES vs. R-ZES was observed. This difference became significant after the first year of the ACS episode and persisted thereafter.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Does Not Lower Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, most studies used bare-metal stents or first-generation drug-eluting stents, and less guideline-directed therapy to reduce cardiovascular risk was reported in CKD patients. This study investigates the impact of moderate-CKD on patients undergoing PCI in the current era. Methods: Patient level data were pooled from 2 multicenter randomized trials (BIONICS and NIREUS trials) with a near “all-comers” design, comparing PCI with ridaforolimus-eluting stents vs. zotarolimus-eluting stents in patients with CAD. Patients were classified according to the presence or absence of moderate-CKD, defined as creatinine clearance (CrCl) <60 mL/min. We compared baseline characteristics, angiographic findings, and clinical outcomes 1-year post-PCI. Results: 236/2,201 (10.7%) patients had CKD, mean CrCl of 50.3 + 7.8 mL/min. These patients were generally older and more often with hypertension than non-CKD patients, but the use of guideline-directed therapy was similar between the groups. CKD was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular death (hazard ratio [HR] 6.08; 95% CI 2.11–17.51; p < 0.001), but with a reduced occurrence of repeated revascularization, including ischemia-driven revascularization (HR 0.47; 95% CI 0.24–0.92; p < 0.05). The rate of repeated angiography per severe cardiovascular adverse event was significantly lower in the CKD than the non-CKD group (23/38 [61%] vs. 253/334 [76%], p < 0.05). Conclusions: Moderate-CKD in patients with CAD was associated with higher rates of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, yet with a lower risk of revascularization 1-year following PCI. Lack of guideline-directed medical therapy does not explain the adverse outcome of CKD patients.

Nobori-Biolimus-Eluting Stents versus Resolute Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients Undergoing Coronary Intervention: A Propensity Score Matching.

PurposeTo compare the 1-year outcomes of a durable polymer Zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) versus a biodegradable polymer Biolimus-eluting stent (BES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.Materials and MethodsA total of 2083 patients from 2 different registries, 1125 treated with BES in NOBORI registry and 858 received ZES in CONSTANT registry were included in this study. Clinical outcomes were compared with the use of propensity score matching (PSM). The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) including cardiac death, myocardial infarction, clinically driven target lesion revascularization and stroke. Secondary end points were individual components of MACCEs as well as the incidence of stent thrombosis at 1-year follow-up.ResultsAfter PSM, 699 matched pairs of patients (n=1398) showed no significant difference between BES and ZES in the risk of composite MACCEs at 1 year (2.6% vs. 1.7%; p=0.36). Cardiac death was not statistically different between groups (0.7% vs. 0.4%, p=0.73). Target lesion revascularization rate was also similar between BES and ZES (1.1% vs. 0.7%, p=0.579). Non-Q wave myocardial infarction, as well as target-vessel revascularization rate, was similar between the two groups (0.14% for BES and 0.72% for ZES). Both stent types were excellent with no cases of stent thrombosis and rate of Q wave myocardial infarction reported during the follow-up period.ConclusionIn this cohort of patients treated with BES or ZES, the rate of MACCEs at 1 year was low and significantly not different between both groups.

Everolimus-Eluting Xience V/Promus Versus Zotarolimus-Eluting Resolute Stents in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus

This study sought to compare everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) in terms of patient- or stent-related clinical outcomes in an "all-comer" group of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. DM significantly increases the risk of adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention. The efficacy and safety of second-generation drug-eluting stents, in particular EES versus ZES, in patients with DM have not been extensively evaluated. Patients with DM (1,855 of 5,054 patients, 36.7%) from 2 prospective registries (the EXCELLENT [Efficacy of Xience/Promus Versus Cypher in Reducing Late Loss After Stenting] registry and RESOLUTE-Korea [Registry to Evaluate the Efficacy of Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent]) who were treated with EES (n = 1,149) or ZES (n = 706) were compared. Stent-related outcome was target lesion failure (TLF), and patient-oriented composite events were a composite of all-cause mortality, any myocardial infarction, and any revascularization. Despite a higher risk patient profile in the ZES group, both TLF (43 of 1,149 [3.7%] vs. 25 of 706 [3.5%], p = 0.899) and patient-oriented composite events (104 of 1,149 [9.1%] vs. 72 of 706 [10.2%], p = 0.416) were similar between the EES and ZES in patients with DM at 1 year. In those without DM, EES and ZES also showed comparable incidence of TLF (39 of 1,882 [2.1%] vs. 33 of 1,292 [2.6%], p = 0.370) and patient-oriented composite events (119 of 1,882 [6.3%] vs. 81 of 1,292 [6.3%], p = 0.951), which were all significantly lower than in the DM patients. These results were corroborated by similar findings from the propensity score-matched cohort. Upon multivariate analysis, chronic renal failure was the most powerful predictor of TLF in DM patients (hazard ratio: 4.39, 95% confidence interval: 1.91 to 10.09, p < 0.001). After unrestricted use of second-generation drug-eluting stents in all-comers receiving percutaneous coronary intervention, both EES and ZES showed comparable clinical outcomes in the patients with DM up to 1 year of follow-up. DM compared with non-DM patients showed significantly worse patient- and stent-related outcomes. Nonetheless, overall incidences of TLF were low, even in the patients with DM, suggesting excellent safety and efficacy of both types of second-generation drug-eluting stents in this high-risk subgroup of patients.

Clinical outcomes of everolimus- and zotarolimus-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction for small coronary artery disease

Background and purposeThere were limited data about comparison of zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) and everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in patients with small coronary artery disease (CAD), especially in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The objective of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of ZES and EES in patients with AMI for small CAD. Methods and subjectsA total 1565 AMI patients treated with Endeavor-ZES (n=651) (Medtronic CardioVascular, Santa Rosa, CA, USA) or Xience V/Promus-EES (n=914) (Abbott Vascular, Temecula, CA/Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA) for small CAD (stent diameter ≤2.75mm) in KAMIR (Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry) were enrolled. After propensity score matching to adjust for baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics, we compared a total 1302 patients (651 ZES and 651 EES) about major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1-year. Subgroup analysis about 1-year clinical outcomes was undertaken in patients who were discharged alive. ResultsBaseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between the two groups after propensity score matching. Total MACE did not differ between the two groups before (9.8% vs. 8.2%, p=0.265) and after (9.8% vs. 9.4%, p=0.778) propensity score matching. The EES group showed lower rate of 1-year cardiac death (5.4% vs. 3.3%, p=0.041), target lesion failure (TLF; 6.9% vs. 4.3%, p=0.022), and stent thrombosis (1.4% vs. 0.4%, p=0.042) compared with the ZES group. However, there were no differences in 1-year cardiac death, TLF, and stent thrombosis in propensity score matched populations. Other various 1-year clinical outcomes showed no difference between the two groups. Subgroup analysis in patients who were discharged alive showed similar outcomes between the two groups at 1-year follow-up. ConclusionIn-this propensity score matched analysis, EES and ZES showed no significant difference in clinical outcomes at 1-year follow-up in patients with AMI for small CAD.

Clinical Outcomes of the Resolute Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients With In-Stent Restenosis: 2-Year Results From a Pooled Analysis

This study sought to assess the clinical safety and effectiveness of the Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) in patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) from 2 large trials. ISR treatment is associated with higher rates of subsequent cardiac events compared with treatment of de novo lesions. Although drug-eluting stents (DES) are an option, second-generation DES are largely untested in the treatment of ISR. A total of 3,489 patients were pooled from the RAC (RESOLUTE All Comers) trial and the RESOLUTE International (RINT) registry. Two-year clinical endpoints included clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR), target lesion failure (TLF), cardiac death (CD), target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), combined CD or TVMI (CD/TVMI), and Academic Research Consortium definite and probable stent thrombosis (ST). Overall, 281 patients (8.1%) received an R-ZES for ISR. Two-year TLR and TLF rates were significantly higher in ISR patients than in non-ISR patients (TLR: 12.7% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.003; TLF: 17.4% vs. 9.4%, p = 0.007); however, the CD/TVMI rate was not (6.9% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.711). Seven ISR patients had ST. Two-year outcomes by ISR stent type were similar: bare-metal stent (BMS)-ISR TLR was 12.5% and TLF was 17.2%; DES-ISR TLR was 13.0% and TLF was 18.8%. CD/TVMI was 7.3% and 7.2% for BMS-ISR and DES-ISR, respectively. Using R-ZES to treat ISR appears equally safe in BMS-ISR and DES-ISR, with CD/TVMI rates comparable to 2-year outcomes in other clinical trials. Although revascularization rates are still higher in ISR lesions, the R-ZES offers an effective alternative for treatment of BMS-ISR and DES-ISR. (Randomized, Two-Arm, Non-inferiority Study Comparing Endeavor-Resolute Stent With Abbot Xience-V Stent [RESOLUTE-AC]; NCT00617084; and RESOLUTE International Registry: Evaluation of the Resolute Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent System in a 'Real-World' Patient Population [RINT]; NCT00752128).

Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Can Be Discontinued at Three Months after Implantation of Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention increases the risk of bleeding. We studied the safety and clinical outcomes of switching from DAPT to aspirin monotherapy at 3 months after ZES implantation. We retrospectively evaluated 168 consecutive patients with coronary artery disease who had been implanted with a ZES from June 2009 through March 2010. After excluding 40 patients according to exclusion criteria such as myocardial infarction, 128 patients were divided into a 3-month DAPT group (67 patients, 88 lesions) and a 12-month conventional DAPT group (61 patients, 81 lesions). Coronary angiographic followup and clinical followup were conducted at more than 8 months and at 12 months after ZES implantation, respectively. Minor and major bleeding events, stent thrombosis (ST), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (death, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, target lesion revascularization, and target vessel revascularization) were evaluated. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidences of ST and MACE between the two groups. The incidence of bleeding events was significantly lower in the 3-month group than in the 12-month group (1.5% versus 11.5%, P < 0.05). DAPT can be safely discontinued at 3 months after ZES implantation, which reduces bleeding risk.

Comparison of zotarolimus-eluting stents versus sirolimus-eluting stents versus paclitaxel-eluting stents for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: results from the Korean Multicentre Endeavor (KOMER) acute myocardial infarction (AMI) trial

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES), sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This study was a prospective, single-blind, multicentre, randomised trial. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 12 months post-procedure, defined as cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), or ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation (TLR). An angiographic substudy was performed at nine months among 348 patients. From October 2006 to April 2008, 611 patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI were randomly assigned to treatment with ZES (n=205), SES (n=204), or PES (n=202). The cumulative incidence of MACE was 5.9% in the ZES group, 3.4% in the SES group and 5.7% in the PES group at 12-month follow-up (p=0.457). There was a trend towards a lower rate of ischaemia-driven TLR at 12- (p=0.092) and 18-month (p=0.080) follow-up in the SES group compared to the ZES and PES groups. No difference was observed in rates of cardiac death, recurrent MI and combined death and/or recurrent MI among three groups at 12- and 18-month follow-up. The rate of stent thrombosis was similar among the three groups (2.0% in each group, p=1.000). As compared with SES and PES, the use of ZES in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI, showed similar rates of MACE, cardiac death and recurrent MI at 12 and 18 months. There was a trend towards a higher rate of TLR with ZES or PES compared to SES.

TCT-413: Safety and Efficacy of the Resolute Zotarolimus-eluting Stent in Patients ≥ 70 Years of Age

TCT-413: Safety and Efficacy of the Resolute Zotarolimus-eluting Stent in Patients ≥ 70 Years of Age

Angiographic and intravascular ultrasound findings following implantation of the Endeavor™ zotarolimus-eluting stents in patients from the real-world clinical practice

The aim of this study was to investigate the angiographic and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) findings of the Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) in patients from a "real-world" clinical practice. From January to March 2006, 100 patients undergoing routine or emergency percutaneous intervention were prospectively enrolled at one institution. Overall, 39% of the patients were diabetics and 80.8% of lesions were type B2/C. A total of 140 lesions were successfully treated with 174 ZES, and procedural success was 98%. Mean vessel diameter was 2.69 mm and mean lesion length was 16.0 mm; at 6-month angiographic follow-up (completed in 96%), in-stent late lumen loss was 0.66 mm, and in-segment restenosis was 8.2%. Angiographic restenosis was increased among diabetics (15.5 vs. 2.6%, p=0.009), and diabetes was the only significant predictor of angiographic restenosis (OR=15.27 [95%CI 2.45-95.04], p=0.003). By IVUS (performed in 88% at 6-month), % volume obstruction was 14.4+/-13.4%, and there was no late acquired incomplete stent apposition (ISA). At 1-year, overall MACE rate was 6%, including 5 TLRs (4% of patients), with no occurrence of stent thrombosis. In this prospective "real-world" experience, the ZES demonstrated favourable angiographic and IVUS results in complex patients, with overall in-stent late lumen loss of 0.66 mm, and absence of late acquired ISA. At 1-year, there were no safety concerns including absence of death and stent thrombosis.

Lack of Clinical Benefit of Improved Angiographic Results With Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Compared With Paclitaxel and Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

There is limited information regarding the angiographic and clinical outcomes among the different drug-eluting stents (DESs) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). A total 355 consecutive AMI patients who underwent PCI with a sirolimus- (SES, n=116) or paclitaxel- (PES, n=153) or zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES, n=86) were enrolled. The 6-month angiographic and 1-year clinical outcomes were compared among the 3 groups. At 6 months, there was a trend toward a higher incidence of binary restenosis in the PES group (SES: 8.6%, PES: 19.8%, ZES: 8.3%, P=0.052). Percentage of restenosis was higher in the PES group compared with SES, but was similar to ZES (SES: 18.75 +/-18.16%, PES: 29.32 +/-24.16%, ZES: 23.91 +/-17.03%, P=0.006). Late loss was lower in the SES group compared with PES and ZES (SES: 0.44 +/-0.52, PES: 0.83 +/-0.87, ZES: 0.75 +/-0.63, P<0.001). However, clinical outcomes, including mortality, MI, repeat PCI and major adverse cardiac events, were not different among the 3 groups. The angiographic benefit of SES did not translate into a clinical benefit for up to 1 year in AMI patients.

Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients with Native Coronary Artery Disease: Clinical and Angiographic Outcomes in 1,317 Patients

Early studies of a cobalt-based alloy stent coated with the novel antiproliferative agent zotarolimus and a phosphorylcholine polymer have demonstrated significant reductions in angiographic restenosis and target vessel revascularization compared with bare metal stents. However, the generalizability of the angiographic outcomes and clinical benefit of zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZESs) to a more real-world patient population is undetermined. Clinical and angiographic outcomes in 1,317 patients treated with the ZES in the first 4 trials of the Endeavor ZES (Medtronic Vascular, Santa Rosa, CA) clinical trials program were pooled for systematic analysis. Protocol-specified follow-up angiography was performed at 8 or 12 months for a subset of 750 of these patients, and clinical follow-up was performed at 9 months after the index procedures in all patients. Diabetes mellitus was present in 22.5% of patients, the mean reference vessel diameter was 2.73 mm, and the mean lesion length was 14.59 mm. At 8 months (12 months for ENDEAVOR I), mean +/- SD in-stent late luminal loss was 0.61 +/- 0.49 mm. In-stent late luminal loss was greatest in larger caliber (>2.9 mm) vessels (0.65 +/- 0.49 mm) and longer (>16.3 mm) lesions (0.70 +/- 0.52 mm) but did not statistically vary according to diabetic status. At 9 months, overall rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were 4.9% and 7.7%, respectively. The rate of TLR at 12 months was not significantly different relative to diabetes and lesion length >16.3 mm (7.2% and 7.7%, respectively), although TLR was significantly more common when reference vessel diameter was <2.5 mm (8.5%; p = 0.013). At 24 months, overall rates of TLR and MACE were 6.5% and 9.9%, respectively. The overall 24-month rate of stent thrombosis was 0.3%, with no events occurring >14 days after the procedure. Despite varied clinical and angiographic characteristics, treatment with the ZES is associated with consistently low rates of TLR and overall major adverse events, including stent thrombosis. Although these findings indicate the efficacy and safety of the ZES over the time course of the first 4 ENDEAVOR clinical trials, additional ongoing study with more open patient inclusion criteria (including long lesions, small vessels, bifurcations, etc) will be important for discerning whether comparable clinical outcomes can be extended to lesion subsets of higher complexity.