Comparison of zotarolimus‐ versus everolimus‐eluting stents in the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions

Objectives : To compare zotarolimus‐eluting stent (Endeavor Sprint®; ZES‐S) and the everolimus‐eluting stent (Xience V®; EES) in the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions Background : Both these stents have demonstrated good outcomes in the treatment of coronary lesions. However, the outcomes with respect to treatment of bifurcation lesions have yet to be conclusively demonstrated. Methods : In this single centered, nonrandomized, open label study, we treated, between August 2006 and December 2008, 110 bifurcations with ZES‐S and, in a second stage of the study, 129 bifurcations with EES. The primary end point was to compare the rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (death, myocardial infarction, and new target lesion revascularization) in‐hospital and at 12 months of follow‐up. Provisional T stenting was the strategy used in the majority of cases. Angiographic follow‐up was performed only in patients who presented signs or symptoms suggestive of angina or ischemia. Results : There were no significant differences in in‐hospital MACE between the groups (ZES‐S: 8.1%; EES: 6.2%; P = 0.5). At 12 months, the ZES‐S group had significantly more MACE than the EES group (23.1% vs. 4.5%; P < 0.001) and an elevated index of new revascularization of the bifurcation (17.5% vs. 3.2%; P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in mortality (four patients in ZES‐S vs. one in EES; P = 0.14). Conclusion : The treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions using everolimus‐eluting stents results in better outcomes at 12 months of follow‐up than zotarolimus‐eluting stents. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Angiographic outcomes with biodegradable polymer and permanent polymer drug‐eluting stents

Background : In the Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Test Efficacy of 3 Limus‐Eluting Stents (ISAR‐TEST‐4) trial, we demonstrated the noninferiority of biodegradable polymer (BP) sirolimus‐eluting stent to permanent polymer (PP) sirolimus/everolimus‐eluting stent (Cypher/Xience‐V) on the basis of clinical outcomes. In this study, we compare the antirestenotic efficacy of these stents in ISAR‐TEST‐4 patients with paired angiographic studies. Methods : Patients with de novo coronary lesions in native vessels (excluding left main lesions) were randomly assigned to receive a BP stent or a PP stent. Endpoints of interest of this study were in‐stent late lumen loss, in‐segment binary restenosis, and restenosis morphology at 6–8‐month follow‐up angiogram. Results : Of the 2,603 patients (3,372 lesions) enrolled in ISAR TEST‐4 trial, 2,016 patients (2,637 lesions) underwent repeat angiographic examination 6–8 months after randomization: 1,006 patients (1,323 lesions) treated with BP stents and 1,010 patients (1,314 lesions) treated with PP stents. No difference was observed between BP and PP stents in in‐stent late lumen loss (0.24 ± 0.6 vs. 0.26 ± 0.5 mm, respectively, P = 0.49) or in in‐segment binary restenosis (11.6% [153 lesions] vs. 11.8% [155 lesions], P = 0.85). Focal pattern of restenosis was observed in the majority of patients receiving either BP or PP stents. The diffuse pattern of restenosis was observed in 26.8% of patients treated with BP stent and 26.5% of patients treated with PP stent (P = 0.79). Conclusion : Angiographic characteristics of restenosis after BP‐based limus‐eluting stents are similar to those of PP‐based limus‐eluting stents. © 2011 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Comparison of 2‐year outcomes between zotarolimus‐eluting and everolimus‐eluting new‐generation cobalt–chromium alloy stents in real‐world diabetic patients

Background : To date, it remains unknown whether different types of new‐generation drug‐eluting stents have a differential impact on long‐term outcomes in diabetic patients. Methods and Results : In this historical cohort study (two Italian centers), we analyzed 400 diabetic patients with 553 coronary lesions treated with new‐generation CoCr zotarolimus‐eluting stents (R‐ZES: 136 patients, 196 lesions) or everolimus‐eluting stents (EES: 264 patients, 357 lesions) between October 2006 and August 2012. Primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) over a 2‐year follow‐up period. MACE was defined as all‐cause mortality, any myocardial infarction (MI) and/or target lesion revascularization (TLR). Multivessel revascularization, intervention for restenotic lesion and use of intravascular ultrasound were significantly higher in the R‐ZES group, whereas small stent (≤2.5 mm) deployment was significantly higher in the EES group. At 2‐year follow‐up, there was no significant difference in occurrence of MACE (R‐ZES vs EES: 22.8% vs 18.9%, P = 0.39). Similarly, no significant differences were observed in the composite endpoint of all‐cause mortality/MI (10.0% vs 10.3%, P = 0.86) or TLR (12.4% vs 7.4%, P = 0.11). Adjustment for confounders and baseline propensity‐score matching did not alter the aforementioned associations. Conclusion : After 2 years of follow up similar outcomes (MACE, all‐cause mortality/MI, TLR) were observed in real‐world diabetic patients, including those with complex lesions and patient characteristics, treated with R‐ZES and EES. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.