Clinical follow-up 3 years after everolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents: A pooled analysis from the SPIRIT II (A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE v Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients with de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) and SPIRIT III (A Clinical Evaluation of the Investigational Device XIENCE v Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [EECSS]

  • Adriano Caixeta
  • , Alexandra J. Lansky
  • , Patrick W. Serruys
  • , James B. Hermiller
  • , Peter Ruygrok
  • , Yoshinobu Onuma
  • , Paul Gordon
  • , Manejeh Yaqub
  • , Karine Miquel-Hebert
  • , Susan Veldhof
  • , Poornima Sood
  • , Xiaolu Su
  • , Lalitha Jonnavithula
  • , Krishnankutty Sudhir
  • , Gregg W. Stone

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

47 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate long-term 3-year clinical outcomes of an everolimus-eluting stent (EES) versus a paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES). Background Compared with PES, EES reduced target vessel failure and major adverse cardiac events at 2 years. Whether the benefits of EES are sustained at 3 years has not been reported. Methods In the SPIRIT II (A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) and SPIRIT III (A Clinical Evaluation of the Investigational Device XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [EECSS] in the Treatment of Subjects With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) trials, 1,302 patients were randomly assigned to EES (n = 892) or PES (n = 410). We report the 3-year clinical follow-up of this patient-level pooled analysis. Results At 3 years, EES compared with PES resulted in a significant reduction in myocardial infarction (3.8% vs. 6.7%; relative risk [RR]: 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34 to 0.94; p = 0.04), and target lesion revascularization (6.8% vs. 12.7%; RR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.77; p = 0.001). Everolimus-eluting stents resulted in a significant reduction in target vessel failure (13.7% vs. 19.5%; RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.92; p = 0.01), and major adverse cardiac events (9.1% vs. 16.3%; RR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.76; p = 0.0004). The cumulative rates of Academic Research Consortiumdefined definite or probable stent thrombosis were 1.2% in EES patients and 1.9% in PES patients (RR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.68; p = 0.43). Conclusions In this patient-level pooled analysis, EES compared with PES resulted in a significant and persistent reduction in target vessel failure and major adverse cardiac events at 3 years due to fewer myocardial infarction and ischemic target lesion revascularization events, which is consistent with superior safety and efficacy of the EES platform. (A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions [SPIRIT II]; NCT00180310) (SPIRIT III: A Clinical Evaluation of the Investigational Device XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [EECSS] in the Treatment of Subjects With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions [SPIRIT III]; NCT00180479)

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1220-1228
Number of pages9
JournalJACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
Volume3
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2010
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • drug-eluting stent(s)
  • percutaneous coronary intervention
  • randomized clinical trial

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Clinical follow-up 3 years after everolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents: A pooled analysis from the SPIRIT II (A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE v Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients with de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) and SPIRIT III (A Clinical Evaluation of the Investigational Device XIENCE v Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [EECSS]'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this