Safety and efficacy of second-generation everolimus-eluting Xience v Stents versus zotarolimus-eluting resolute stents in real-world practice: Patient-related and stent-related outcomes from the multicenter prospective EXCELLENT and RESOLUTE-Korea registriesopen access
- Authors
- Park K.W.; Lee J.M.; Kang S.-H.; Ahn H.-S.; Yang H.-M.; Lee H.-Y.; Kang H.-J.; Koo B.-K.; Cho J.; Gwon H.-C.; Lee S.Y.; Chae I.-H.; Youn T.-J.; Chae J.K.; Han K.-R.; Yu C.W.; Kim H.-S.
- Issue Date
- 2013
- Publisher
- Elsevier USA
- Keywords
- clinical outcome; everolimus-eluting stent; patient-oriented composite outcome; Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent; stent thrombosis; target lesion failure
- Citation
- Journal of the American College of Cardiology, v.61, no.5, pp 536 - 544
- Pages
- 9
- Indexed
- SCI
SCIE
SCOPUS
- Journal Title
- Journal of the American College of Cardiology
- Volume
- 61
- Number
- 5
- Start Page
- 536
- End Page
- 544
- URI
- https://scholarworks.korea.ac.kr/kumedicine/handle/2020.sw.kumedicine/11386
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.11.015
- ISSN
- 0735-1097
1558-3597
- Abstract
- Objectives: This study sought to compare the safety and efficacy of the Xience V/Promus everolimus-eluting stent (EES) (Abbott Vascular, Temecula, California) with the Endeavor Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES-R) (Medtronic Cardiovascular, Santa Rosa, California) in all-comer cohorts. Background: Only 2 randomized controlled trials have compared these stents. Methods: The EXCELLENT (Efficacy of Xience/Promus Versus Cypher to Reduce Late Loss After Stenting) and RESOLUTE-Korea registries prospectively enrolled 3,056 patients treated with the EES and 1,998 patients treated with the ZES-R, respectively, without exclusions. Stent-related composite outcomes (target lesion failure [TLF]) and patient-related composite outcomes were compared in crude and propensity score-matched analyses. Results: Of 5,054 patients, 3,830 (75.8%) had off-label indication (2,217 treated with EES and 1,613 treated with ZES-R). The stent-related outcome (82 [2.7%] vs. 58 [2.9%], p = 0.662) and the patient-related outcome (225 [7.4%] vs. 153 [7.7%], p = 0.702) did not differ between EES and ZES-R, respectively, at 1 year, which was corroborated by similar results from the propensity score-matched cohort. The rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis (18 [0.6%] vs. 7 [0.4%], p = 0.306) also was similar. In multivariate analysis, off-label indication was the strongest predictor of TLF (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.882; 95% confidence interval: 1.226 to 6.779; p = 0.015). Conclusions: In this robust real-world registry with unrestricted use of EES and ZES-R, both stents showed comparable safety and efficacy at 1-year follow-up. Overall incidences of TLF and definite stent thrombosis were low, even in the patients with off-label indication, suggesting excellent safety and efficacy of both types of second-generation drug-eluting stents. © 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation.
- Files in This Item
- There are no files associated with this item.
- Appears in
Collections - 2. Clinical Science > Department of Cardiology > 1. Journal Articles
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.