Ten-year clinical outcomes from a randomized trial comparing new-generation everolimus-eluting stent versus first-generation Sirolimus-eluting stent: Results from the RESET extended study.
coronary intervention
drug-eluting stents
long-term outcome
Journal
Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions
ISSN: 1522-726X
Titre abrégé: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100884139
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2023
Oct 2023
Historique:
revised:
05
07
2023
received:
08
03
2023
accepted:
18
07
2023
pubmed:
7
8
2023
medline:
7
8
2023
entrez:
7
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
New-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) achieved technological innovations and reported clinical advantages as compared with first-generation DES in clinical trials with 3-5 years follow-up. However, detailed clinical outcome data in very long-term follow-up is still scarce. To evaluate 10-year clinical outcomes after first- and new-generation DES implantation. In this extende follow-up study of the RESET, which is a largest randomized trial comparing everolimus-eluting stent (EES) with Sirolimus-eluting stent (SES), the study population consisted of 2892 patients from 84 centers. The primary efficacy and safety endpoints were target lesion revascularization (TLR) and a composite of death or myocardial infarction (MI), respectively. Complete 10-year follow-up was achieved in 87.9% of patients. Cumulative 10-year incidences of TLR and non-TLR were not significantly different between EES and SES (13.9% vs. 15.7%, Log-rank p = 0.20, and 33.4% vs. 31.3%, Log-rank p = 0.30). The cumulative 10-year incidence of death/MI was also not significantly different between the groups (32.5% vs. 34.4%, Log-rank p = 0.18). Cumulative 10-year incidence of definite stent thrombosis was numerically lower in EES than in SES (1.0% vs. 1.7%, Log-rank p = 0.16). The lower risk of EES relative to SES was significant for a composite endpoint of target lesion failure (TLF: 19.6% vs. 24.9%, Log-rank p = 0.001) and target vessel failure (TVF: 26.7% vs. 31.4%, Log-rank p = 0.006). During 10-year of follow-up, the risks for primary efficacy and safety endpoints were not significantly different between new-generation EES and first-generation SES, although EES compared with SES was associated with a lower risk for composite endpoints such as TLF and TVF.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
New-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) achieved technological innovations and reported clinical advantages as compared with first-generation DES in clinical trials with 3-5 years follow-up. However, detailed clinical outcome data in very long-term follow-up is still scarce.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate 10-year clinical outcomes after first- and new-generation DES implantation.
METHODS
METHODS
In this extende follow-up study of the RESET, which is a largest randomized trial comparing everolimus-eluting stent (EES) with Sirolimus-eluting stent (SES), the study population consisted of 2892 patients from 84 centers. The primary efficacy and safety endpoints were target lesion revascularization (TLR) and a composite of death or myocardial infarction (MI), respectively. Complete 10-year follow-up was achieved in 87.9% of patients.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Cumulative 10-year incidences of TLR and non-TLR were not significantly different between EES and SES (13.9% vs. 15.7%, Log-rank p = 0.20, and 33.4% vs. 31.3%, Log-rank p = 0.30). The cumulative 10-year incidence of death/MI was also not significantly different between the groups (32.5% vs. 34.4%, Log-rank p = 0.18). Cumulative 10-year incidence of definite stent thrombosis was numerically lower in EES than in SES (1.0% vs. 1.7%, Log-rank p = 0.16). The lower risk of EES relative to SES was significant for a composite endpoint of target lesion failure (TLF: 19.6% vs. 24.9%, Log-rank p = 0.001) and target vessel failure (TVF: 26.7% vs. 31.4%, Log-rank p = 0.006).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
During 10-year of follow-up, the risks for primary efficacy and safety endpoints were not significantly different between new-generation EES and first-generation SES, although EES compared with SES was associated with a lower risk for composite endpoints such as TLF and TVF.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
594-607Subventions
Organisme : Abbott Vascular
Informations de copyright
© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Moses JW, Leon MB, Popma JJ, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:1315-1323.
Kimura T, Morimoto T, Furukawa Y, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of Sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in real world clinical practice in Japan. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2011;26:234-245.
Kimura T, Morimoto T, Nakagawa Y, et al. Very late stent thrombosis and late target lesion revascularization after Sirolimus-eluting stent implantation: five-year outcome of the j-Cypher Registry. Circulation. 2012;125:584-591.
Kolandaivelu K, Swaminathan R, Gibson WJ, et al. Stent thrombogenicity early in high-risk interventional settings is driven by stent design and deployment and protected by polymer-drug coatings. Circulation. 2011;123:1400-1409.
Otsuka F, Vorpahl M, Nakano M, et al. Pathology of second-generation everolimus-eluting stents versus first-generation Sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents in humans. Circulation. 2014;129:211-223.
Räber L, Jüni P, Nüesch E, et al. Long-term comparison of everolimus-eluting and Sirolimus-eluting stents for coronary revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:2143-2151.
Stefanini GG, Kalesan B, Serruys PW, et al. Long-term clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer Sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease (LEADERS): 4 year follow-up of a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2011;378:1940-1948.
Jensen LO, Thayssen P, Christiansen EH, et al. Safety and efficacy of everolimus- versus Sirolimus-eluting stents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67:751-762.
Shiomi H, Kozuma K, Morimoto T, et al. Long-term clinical outcomes after everolimus- and Sirolimus-eluting coronary stent implantation: final 3-year follow-up of the randomized evaluation of Sirolimus-eluting versus everolimus-eluting stent trial. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2014;7:343-354.
Kufner S, Joner M, Thannheimer A, et al. Ten-Year clinical outcomes from a trial of three limus-eluting stents with different polymer coatings in patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2019;139:325-333.
Yamaji K, Räber L, Zanchin T, et al. Ten-year clinical outcomes of first-generation drug-eluting stents: the Sirolimus-eluting vs. paclitaxel-eluting stents for coronary revascularization (SIRTAX) VERY LATE trial. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:3386-3395.
Galløe AM, Kelbaek H, Thuesen L, et al. 10-year clinical outcome after randomization to treatment by Sirolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:616-624.
Kufner S, Ernst M, Cassese S, et al. 10-year outcomes from a randomized trial of polymer-free versus durable polymer drug-eluting coronary stents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:146-158.
Kimura T, Morimoto T, Natsuaki M, et al. Comparison of everolimus-eluting and Sirolimus-eluting coronary stents: 1-year outcomes from the randomized evaluation of Sirolimus-eluting versus everolimus-eluting stent trial (RESET). Circulation. 2012;126:1225-1236.
Shiomi H, Kozuma K, Morimoto T, et al. 7-year outcomes of a randomized trial comparing the first-generation Sirolimus-eluting stent versus the new-generation everolimus-eluting stent. Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:637-647.
Kozuma K, Kimura T, Kadota K, et al. Angiographic findings of everolimus-eluting as compared to Sirolimus-eluting stents: angiographic sub-study from the randomized evaluation of Sirolimus-eluting versus everolimus-eluting stent trial (RESET). Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2013;28:344-351.
Sianos G, Morel MA, Kappetein AP, et al. The SYNTAX score: an angiographic tool grading the complexity of coronary artery disease. EuroIntervention. 2005;1:219-227.
Mehran R, Dangas G, Abizaid AS, et al. Angiographic patterns of in-stent restenosis: classification and implications for long-term outcome. Circulation. 1999;100:1872-1878.
Toyota T, Shiomi H, Morimoto T, Kimura T. Meta-analysis of long-term clinical outcomes of everolimus-eluting stents. Am J Cardiol. 2015;116:187-194.
Hong SJ, Kim BK, Shin DH, et al. Effect of intravascular ultrasound-guided vs angiography-guided everolimus-eluting stent implantation: the IVUS-XPL randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314:2155-2163.
Zhang J, Gao X, Kan J, et al. Intravascular ultrasound versus angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72:3126-3137.
Serruys PW, Farooq V, Kalesan B, et al. Improved safety and reduction in stent thrombosis associated with biodegradable polymer-based biolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer-based Sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: final 5-year report of the LEADERS (Limus Eluted From A Durable Versus ERodable Stent Coating) randomized, noninferiority trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:777-789.