Comparison of the Major Clinical Outcomes for the Use of Endeavor® and Resolute Integrity® Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents During a Three-Year Follow-up. Issue 1 (6th February 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kim, Yong Hoon; Her, Ae-Young; Rha, Seung-Woon; Choi, Byoung Geol; Choi, Se Yeon; Byun, Jae Kyeong; Park, Yoonjee; Kang, Dong Oh; Jang, Won Young; Kim, Woohyeun; Choi, Cheol Ung; Park, Chang Gyu; Seo, Hong Seog
• Is Part Of: Global heart. Volume 15:Issue 1(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-02-06
• Subjects: Clinical outcomes -- Drug-eluting stent -- Zotarolimus; Cardiology -- Periodicals; Heart -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Cardiovascular system -- Diseases -- Prevention -- Periodicals; Cardiovascular system -- Diseases -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Cardiovascular system -- Diseases -- Prevention; Cardiovascular Diseases -- prevention & control -- Periodicals; Cardiovascular Diseases -- Periodicals; Developing Countries -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 616.1005
• DOI: 10.5334/gh.374
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2211-8160

Abstract

Background: Endeavor®-zotarolimus-eluting stent (E-ZES) was the first ZES to be developed, and Resolute integrity®-ZES (I-ZES) has been developed more recently. Comparative studies on long-term usage of these two ZESs have been rare. Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of E-ZES and I-ZES during a long-term follow-up of patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: A total of 767 patients who underwent PCI with E-ZES or I-ZES were eligible for this study. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), defined as the composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), and any repeat revascularization. The secondary endpoint was stent thrombosis (ST). Results: After propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis, two PSM groups (193 pairs, n = 386, C-statistic = 0.824) were generated. During the 3-year follow-up period, the cumulative incidence of MACEs (hazard ratio [HR], 0.837; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.464–1.508; p = 0.553) and ST (HR, 0.398; 95% CI, 0.077–2.052; p = 0.271) was similar for the E-ZES and I-ZES groups. Additionally, the cumulative incidences of all-cause death, cardiac death, non-fatal MI, and any repeat revascularization were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusions: Although I-ZES utilizes a more advanced stent platform, stent design, and polymer system than E-ZES, both the ZESs showed comparable efficacy and safety during the 3-year follow-up period in this single-center, all-comers registry. However, further large-scaled, randomized, well-controlled trials with long-term follow-up are needed to verify these results.