Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare 7-year outcomes between the first-generation sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and the new-generation everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in a randomized clinical trial. Background: There is a scarcity of very long-term (beyond 5 years) data from clinical trials investigating whether new-generation drug-eluting stents have clear clinical advantages over first-generation drug-eluting stents. Methods: RESET (Randomized Evaluation of Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stent Trial) is the largest randomized trial comparing EES with SES (NCT01035450). Among a total of 3,197 patients in the original RESET population from 100 centers, the present extended 7-year follow-up study was conducted in 2,667 patients from 75 centers after excluding those patients enrolled from centers that denied participation. Complete 7-year follow-up was achieved in 91.5% of patients. Results: The cumulative 7-year incidence of the primary efficacy endpoint of target lesion revascularization was not significantly different between EES and SES (10.2% vs. 11.7%; hazard ratio: 0.87; 95% confidence interval: 0.68 to 1.10; p = 0.24). The risk for the primary safety endpoint of death or myocardial infarction trended lower with EES than with SES (20.6% vs. 23.6%; hazard ratio: 0.85; 95% confidence interval: 0.72 to 1.005; p = 0.06). The cumulative 7-year incidence of definite stent thrombosis was very low and similar between EES and SES (0.9% vs. 1.0%; p = 0.82). The lower risk of EES relative to SES was significant for the composite secondary endpoint of target lesion failure (13.3% vs. 18.1%; hazard ratio: 0.72; 95% confidence interval: 0.59 to 0.88; p = 0.001). Conclusions: During 7 years of follow-up, the risk for target lesion revascularization was not significantly different between the new-generation EES and the first-generation SES.
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine