Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Abstract 11320: Long-Term Stent-Related and Patient-Related Outcomes of Second-Generation Everolimus-Eluting Xience V Stents versus Zotarolimus-Eluting Resolute Stents in Real-World Practice: Three Year Results From the Multicenter Prospective EXCELLENT and RESOLUTE-Korea Registries

2014; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 130; Issue: suppl_2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1161/circ.130.suppl_2.11320

1524-4539

Jonghanne Park, Joo Myung Lee, Kyung Woo Park, Jung‐Kyu Han, Han‐Mo Yang, Hyun‐Jae Kang, Bon‐Kwon Koo, Jang‐Whan Bae, Sung‐Il Woo, Jin-Sik Park, Dong‐Kyu Jin, Dong Woon Jeon, Seok Kyu Oh, Jong‐Seon Park, Doo‐Il Kim, Min Su Hyon, Hui‐Kyung Jeon, Do–Sun Lim, Myeong-Gon Kim, Seung‐Woon Rha, Sung‐Ho Her, Jin‐Yong Hwang, Sang‐Hyun Kim, Young Jin Choi, Jin Ho Kang, Keon‐Woong Moon, Yangsoo Jang, Hyo‐Soo Kim,

Coronary Interventions and Diagnostics

Background: Long term outcomes are imperative to confirm safety of drug-eluting stents. There have been two randomized controlled trials comparing everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES-R). To date, long-term clinical outcomes of these stents were limited to only one report which has recently reported 4-year comparisons of these stents. Therefore, more evidences are needed regarding long-term clinical outcomes of the second generation stents. This study compared the long-term clinical outcomes of EES with ZES-R in “all-comer” cohorts up to 3-year follow-up. Methods: The EXCELLENT and RESOLUTE-Korea registries prospectively enrolled 3,056 patients treated with EES and 1,998 with ZES-R. Target lesion failure and patient-related composite events were compared in crude and propensity score matched analyses. Results: Of 5054 patients, 3830 patients (75.8%) had off label indication (2217 with EES and 1613 with ZES-R). The stent-related outcome (189 [6.2%] vs. 127 [6.4%], p=0.812) and the patient-related outcome (420 [13.7%] vs. 250 [12.5%], p=0.581) did not differ between EES and ZES-R respectively at 3 year, which was corroborated by similar results from the propensity score-matched cohort (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.70-1.20, p=0.523 and 0.85, 95% CI 0.70-1.02, p=0.081, for stent and patient related outcomes, respectively). The rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis up to 3 years (22 [0.7%] vs. 10 [0.5%], p=0.370) was also similar. The rate of stent thrombosis was very low and comparable between the two stents (3 [0.1%] vs. 1 [0.1%], p=0.657). In multivariate analysis, chronic renal failure (adjusted HR 3.615, 95% CI 2.440-5.354, p<0.001) and off label indication (adjusted HR 1.782, 95% CI 1.169-2.718, p=0.007) were the strongest predictors of target lesion failure. Conclusion: In this robust real world registry with unrestricted use of EES and ZES-R, both stents showed comparable safety and efficacy at 3-year follow-up. Overall incidences of target lesion failure and definite stent thrombosis, including very late stent thrombosis, were low, even in the patients with off label indications, suggesting excellent long term safety and sustained efficacy of both types of second generation drug-eluting stents.