Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

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 registries

  • Kyung Woo Park
  • , Joo Myung Lee
  • , Si Hyuck Kang
  • , Hyo Suk Ahn
  • , Han Mo Yang
  • , Hae Young Lee
  • , Hyun Jae Kang
  • , Bon Kwon Koo
  • , Janghyun Cho
  • , Hyeon Cheol Gwon
  • , Sung Yoon Lee
  • , In Ho Chae
  • , Tae Jin Youn
  • , Jei Keon Chae
  • , Kyoo Rok Han
  • , Cheol Woong Yu
  • , Hyo Soo Kim
  • Seoul National University
  • St. Carollo General Hospital
  • Sungkyunkwan University
  • Inje University
  • Jeonbuk National University
  • Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital
  • Sejong General Hospital

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

47 Scopus citations

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)536-544
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of the American College of Cardiology
Volume61
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 5 Feb 2013

Keywords

  • Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent
  • clinical outcome
  • everolimus-eluting stent
  • patient-oriented composite outcome
  • stent thrombosis
  • target lesion failure

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of '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 registries'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this