Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Long-term clinical outcomes after everolimus- and sirolimus-eluting coronary stent implantation: Final 3-year follow-up of the randomized evaluation of sirolimus-eluting versus everolimus-eluting stent trial

  • Hiroki Shiomi
  • , Ken Kozuma
  • , Takeshi Morimoto
  • , Keiichi Igarashi
  • , Kazushige Kadota
  • , Kengo Tanabe
  • , Yoshihiro Morino
  • , Takashi Akasaka
  • , Mitsuru Abe
  • , Satoru Suwa
  • , Toshiya Muramatsu
  • , Masakazu Kobayashi
  • , Kazuoki Dai
  • , Koichi Nakao
  • , Masaaki Uematsu
  • , Yasuhiro Tarutani
  • , Kenshi Fujii
  • , Charles A. Simonton
  • , Takeshi Kimura

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Background-Long-term clinical outcomes of everolimus-eluting stent (EES) compared with sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) have not been evaluated fully yet, especially whether EES implantation could positively affect late adverse events reported after SES implantation occurring >1 year. Methods and Results-In this all-comer prospective multicenter randomized open-label trial, 3196 patients were assigned randomly to implant either EES (n=1596) or SES (n=1600). At 3 years, EES was noninferior to SES on the primary safety end point (all-cause death or myocardial infarction; 10.1% versus 11.5%; noninferiority P <0.001; and superiority P=0.19). Cumulative incidence of defnite stent thrombosis was low and was not signifcantly different between the 2 groups (0.5% versus 0.6%; P=0.81). There was no signifcant difference in the effcacy end point of target-lesion revascularization between the EES and SES groups (6.6% versus 7.9%; P=0.16). However, the cumulative incidence of target-lesion failure (cardiac death/target-vessel myocardial infarction/ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization) was signifcantly lower in the EES group than in the SES group (8.8% versus 11.4%; P=0.01). By a landmark analysis at 1 year, the cumulative incidence of very late stent thrombosis and late target-lesion revascularization was not signifcantly different between the 2 groups (0.2% versus 0.2%; P=0.99 and 2.2% versus 2.9%; P=0.21, respectively). Conclusions-The effcacy and safety outcomes for this trial after EES implantation remained comparable with those after SES implantation through 3-year follow-up. However, improvement of clinical outcome after EES implantation compared with SES implantation was suggested by the signifcantly lower cumulative incidences of target-lesion failure, which has been the most widely used primary end point in the stent-versus-stent trials.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)343-354
Number of pages12
JournalCirculation: Cardiovascular Interventions
Volume7
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 06-2014

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Long-term clinical outcomes after everolimus- and sirolimus-eluting coronary stent implantation: Final 3-year follow-up of the randomized evaluation of sirolimus-eluting versus everolimus-eluting stent trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this