The “Final” 5-Year Follow-Up From the ENDEAVOR IV Trial Comparing a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With a Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent

Objectives This study sought to report the final 5-year outcomes of the ENDEAVOR IV (A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Medtronic Endeavor Drug [ABT-578] Eluting Coronary Stent System Versus the Taxus Paclitaxel-Eluting Coronary Stent System in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) trial compar...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:JACC. Cardiovascular interventions 2013-04, Vol.6 (4), p.325-333
Hauptverfasser: Kirtane, Ajay J., MD, SM, Leon, Martin B., MD, Ball, Michael W., MD, Bajwa, Harpaul S., MD, Sketch, Michael H., MD, Coleman, Patrick S., MD, Stoler, Robert C., MD, Papadakos, Stylianos, MD, Cutlip, Donald E., MD, Mauri, Laura, MD, MSc, Kandzari, David E., MD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objectives This study sought to report the final 5-year outcomes of the ENDEAVOR IV (A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Medtronic Endeavor Drug [ABT-578] Eluting Coronary Stent System Versus the Taxus Paclitaxel-Eluting Coronary Stent System in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) trial comparing the Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent (E-ZES) (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, California) with the Taxus paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) in patients with single de novo coronary lesions. Background Primary results of the ENDEAVOR IV trial demonstrated similar clinical outcomes with E-ZES and PES. Concerns with regard to late adverse clinical events with drug-eluting stents highlight the need for long-term follow-up with these devices. Methods Late outcomes after the use of E-ZES and PES were examined in the multicenter randomized ENDEAVOR IV trial in cumulative and landmark analyses. Assessed outcomes were related to device efficacy and patient safety. Results At 5 years, clinical data were available for 722 (93.4%) E-ZES patients and 718 (92.6%) PES patients. Overall rates of target lesion revascularization (7.7% vs. 8.6%, p = 0.70) and target vessel failure were similar (17.2% vs. 21.1%, p = 0.061) with E-ZES compared with PES. The incidence of cardiac death or myocardial infarction (MI) was lower with E-ZES (6.4% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.048), primarily driven by a lower rate of target vessel MI with E-ZES (2.6% vs. 6.0%, p = 0.002). Although overall definite/probable stent thrombosis rates were similar between stents (1.3% vs. 2%, p = 0.42), rates of very late stent thrombosis (0.4% vs. 1.8%, p = 0.012) and late MI events (1.3% vs. 3.5%, p = 0.008) were significantly lower with E-ZES compared with PES. Conclusions These data demonstrate the durable efficacy and safety of E-ZES compared with PES for the treatment of de novo coronary lesions. Significant improvements in late safety outcomes were observed with E-ZES but should be considered hypothesis-generating, given the limited statistical power of the trial. (The ENDEAVOR IV Clinical Trial: A Trial of a Coronary Stent System in Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT00217269 )
ISSN:1936-8798
1876-7605
DOI:10.1016/j.jcin.2012.12.123