Department of Cardiology, Thoraxcentrum Twente, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Apr 10;59(15):1350-61. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.01.008. Epub 2012 Feb 15.
The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) (Medtronic Cardiovascular, Santa Rosa, California) with Xience V everolimus-eluting stents (EES) (Abbott Vascular Devices, Santa Clara, California) at 1-year follow-up.
Only 1 randomized trial previously compared these stents.
This investigator-initiated, patient-blinded, randomized noninferiority study had limited exclusion criteria (acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions not eligible). Patients (n = 1,391; 81.4% of eligible population) were randomly assigned to ZES (n = 697) or EES (n = 694). Liberal use of stent post-dilation was encouraged. Cardiac biomarkers were systematically assessed. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction not clearly attributable to non-target vessels, and clinically indicated target-vessel revascularization. An external independent research organization performed clinical event adjudication (100% follow-up data available). Analysis was by intention-to-treat.
Acute coronary syndromes were present in 52% and "off-label" feature in 77% of patients. Of the lesions, 70% were type B2/C; the post-dilation rate was very high (82%). In ZES and EES, TVF occurred in 8.2% and 8.1%, respectively (absolute risk-difference 0.1%; 95% confidence interval: -2.8% to 3.0%, p(noninferiority) = 0.001). There was no significant between-group difference in TVF components. The definite-or-probable stent thrombosis rates were relatively low and similar for ZES and EES (0.9% and 1.2%, respectively, p = 0.59). Definite stent thrombosis rates were also low (0.58% and 0%, respectively, p = 0.12). In EES, probable stent thrombosis beyond day 8 was observed only in patients not adhering to dual antiplatelet therapy.
Resolute ZES were noninferior to Xience V EES in treating "real-world" patients with a vast majority of complex lesions and "off-label" indications for drug-eluting stents, which were implanted with liberal use of post-dilation. (The Real-World Endeavor Resolute Versus XIENCE V Drug-Eluting SteNt Study: Head-to-head Comparison of Clinical Outcome After Implantation of Second Generation Drug-eluting Stents in a Real World Scenario; NCT01066650).
本研究旨在比较 Resolute 佐他莫司洗脱支架(ZES)(美敦力心血管,加利福尼亚州圣罗莎)与 Xience V 依维莫司洗脱支架(EES)(雅培血管设备,加利福尼亚州圣克拉拉)在 1 年随访时的安全性和疗效。
之前仅有 1 项随机试验比较了这两种支架。
本项由研究者发起、患者设盲、随机非劣效性研究纳入了有限的排除标准(不适合急性 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死患者)。患者(n=1391;符合条件人群的 81.4%)被随机分配至 ZES(n=697)或 EES(n=694)组。支架后扩张的广泛应用是被鼓励的。系统评估心脏生物标志物。主要终点是靶血管失败(TVF),这是一个复合终点,包括心脏死亡、无法明确归因于非靶血管的心肌梗死和临床指征明确的靶血管血运重建。一个独立的外部研究组织进行临床事件裁定(100%的随访数据可用)。分析采用意向治疗。
52%的患者存在急性冠脉综合征,77%的患者存在“超适应证”特征。病变中 70%为 B2/C 型;后扩张率非常高(82%)。在 ZES 和 EES 中,TVF 分别发生在 8.2%和 8.1%的患者中(绝对风险差异为 0.1%;95%置信区间:-2.8%至 3.0%,p(非劣效性)=0.001)。两组之间 TVF 各组成部分均无显著差异。ZES 和 EES 的明确或可能的支架血栓形成率相对较低且相似(分别为 0.9%和 1.2%,p=0.59)。确定的支架血栓形成率也较低(分别为 0.58%和 0%,p=0.12)。在 EES 中,仅在未接受双联抗血小板治疗的患者中观察到第 8 天以后的可能支架血栓形成。
在治疗大多数复杂病变和“超适应证”药物洗脱支架的“真实世界”患者中,Resolute ZES 不劣于 Xience V EES,支架植入后广泛使用后扩张。(真实世界 Endeavor Resolute 与 XIENCE V 药物洗脱支架研究:在真实世界场景中植入第二代药物洗脱支架后临床结局的头对头比较;NCT01066650)。