Safety and Efficacy of Resolute Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents Compared With Everolimus-Eluting Stents. (April 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Piccolo, Raffaele; Stefanini, Giulio G.; Franzone, Anna; Spitzer, Ernest; Blöchlinger, Stefan; Heg, Dik; Jüni, Peter; Windecker, Stephan
• Is Part Of: Circulation. Volume 8:Number 4(2015)
• Publication Date: 2015-04
• Subjects: Cardiovascular system -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Cardiovascular system -- Diseases -- Treatment -- Periodicals; 616.105
• DOI: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.002223
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1941-7640

Abstract

<abstract> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <sec> <title>Background—</title> <p>Although new-generation drug-eluting stents represent the standard of care among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, there remains debate about differences in efficacy and the risk of stent thrombosis between the Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) and the everolimus-eluting stent (EES). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the R-ZES compared with EES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>Methods and Results—</title> <p>A systematic literature search of electronic resources was performed using specific search terms until September 2014. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed comparing clinical outcomes between patients treated with R-ZES and EES up to maximum available follow-up. The primary efficacy end point was target-vessel revascularization. The primary safety end point was definite or probable stent thrombosis. Secondary safety end points were cardiac death and target-vessel myocardial infarction. Five trials were identified, including a total of 9899 patients. Compared with EES, R-ZES had similar risks of target-vessel revascularization (risk ratio [RR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90–1.24; <italic>P</italic>=0.50), definite or probable stent thrombosis (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.86–1.85; <italic>P</italic>=0.24), cardiac death (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79–1.30; <italic>P</italic>=0.91), and target-vessel myocardial infarction (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.89–1.36; <italic>P</italic>=0.39). Moreover, R-ZES and EES had similar risks of late definite or probable very late stent thrombosis (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.53–2.11; <italic>P</italic>=0.87). No evidence of significant heterogeneity was observed across trials.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>Conclusions—</title> <p>R-ZES and EES provide similar safety and efficacy among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.</p> </sec> </abstract>