Department of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aalborg Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Lancet. 2010 Mar 27;375(9720):1090-9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60208-5. Epub 2010 Mar 16.
In low-risk patients, the zotarolimus-eluting stent has been shown to reduce rates of restenosis without increasing the risk of stent thrombosis. We compared the efficacy and safety of the zotarolimus-eluting stent versus the sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease who were receiving routine clinical care with no direct follow-up.
We did a single-blind, all-comer superiority trial in adult patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes, and at least one target lesion. Patients were treated at one of five percutaneous coronary intervention centres between January, 2006, and August, 2007. Computer-generated block randomisation and a telephone allocation service were used to randomly assign patients to receive the zotarolimus-eluting or the sirolimus-eluting stent. Data for follow-up were obtained from national Danish administrative and health-care registries. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiac events within 9 months: cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation. Intention-to-treat analyses were done at 9-month and 18-month follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00660478.
1162 patients (1619 lesions) were assigned to receive the zotarolimus-eluting stent, and 1170 patients (1611 lesions) to receive the sirolimus-eluting stent. 67 patients (72 lesions) had stent failure, and six patients were lost to follow-up. All randomly assigned patients were included in analyses at 9-month follow-up; 2200 patients (94%) had completed 18-month follow-up by the time of our assessment. At 9 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in a higher proportion of patients treated with the zotarolimus-eluting stent than in those treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent (72 [6%] vs 34 [3%]; HR 2.15, 95% CI 1.43-3.23; p=0.0002). At 18-month follow-up, this difference was sustained (113 [10%] vs 53 [5%]; 2.19, 1.58-3.04; p<0.0001). For patients receiving the zotarolimus-eluting stent and those receiving the sirolimus-eluting stent, all cause-mortality was similar at 9-month follow-up (25 [2%] vs 18 [2%]; 1.40, 0.76-2.56; p=0.28), but was significantly different at 18-month follow-up (51 [4%] vs 32 [3%]; 1.61, 1.03-2.50; p=0.035).
The sirolimus-eluting stent is superior to the zotarolimus-eluting stent for patients receiving routine clinical care.
Cordis and Medtronic.
在低危患者中,与使用西罗莫司洗脱支架相比,使用依维莫司洗脱支架可降低再狭窄率,而不会增加支架血栓形成的风险。我们比较了在接受常规临床护理且无直接随访的冠状动脉疾病患者中,依维莫司洗脱支架与西罗莫司洗脱支架的疗效和安全性。
我们在 2006 年 1 月至 2007 年 8 月期间,在患有慢性稳定型冠状动脉疾病或急性冠状动脉综合征的成年患者中进行了一项单盲、所有患者入组的优效性试验,且至少有一个靶病变。患者在 5 个经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中心之一接受治疗。采用计算机生成的分组随机化和电话分配服务,将患者随机分配接受依维莫司洗脱支架或西罗莫司洗脱支架治疗。随访的数据来自丹麦国家行政和医疗保健登记处。主要终点是 9 个月内的主要不良心脏事件的复合终点:心脏死亡、心肌梗死和靶血管血运重建。在 9 个月和 18 个月的随访时进行意向治疗分析。本试验在 ClinicalTrials.gov 注册,编号为 NCT00660478。
1162 例患者(1619 个病变)被分配接受依维莫司洗脱支架治疗,1170 例患者(1611 个病变)接受西罗莫司洗脱支架治疗。67 例患者(72 个病变)发生支架失败,6 例患者失访。所有随机分配的患者均纳入 9 个月随访分析;在我们评估时,2200 例患者(94%)已完成 18 个月随访。9 个月时,依维莫司洗脱支架组的主要终点事件发生率高于西罗莫司洗脱支架组(72 例[6%]比 34 例[3%];HR 2.15,95%CI 1.43-3.23;p=0.0002)。18 个月随访时,这一差异仍持续存在(113 例[10%]比 53 例[5%];2.19,1.58-3.04;p<0.0001)。在接受依维莫司洗脱支架治疗和西罗莫司洗脱支架治疗的患者中,9 个月随访时全因死亡率相似(25 例[2%]比 18 例[2%];1.40,0.76-2.56;p=0.28),但 18 个月随访时差异显著(51 例[4%]比 32 例[3%];1.61,1.03-2.50;p=0.035)。
在接受常规临床护理的患者中,西罗莫司洗脱支架优于依维莫司洗脱支架。
Cordis 和 Medtronic。