-
JACC Cardiovasc Interv · Oct 2010
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Comparative StudyImproved late clinical safety with zotarolimus-eluting stents compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with de novo coronary lesions: 3-year follow-up from the ENDEAVOR IV (Randomized Comparison of Zotarolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease) trial.
- Martin B Leon, Eugenia Nikolsky, Donald E Cutlip, Laura Mauri, Henry Liberman, Hadley Wilson, John Patterson, Jeffrey Moses, David E Kandzari, and ENDEAVOR IV Investigators.
- Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York 10032, USA. mleon@crf.org
- JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010 Oct 1; 3 (10): 1043-50.
ObjectivesThe increased frequency of very late (>1 year) stent thrombosis (VLST) has raised concerns with regard to the safety of sirolimus-eluting stents and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES).BackgroundExperimental and preliminary clinical findings with the zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) have suggested a favorable safety profile.MethodsThe ENDEAVOR IV (Randomized Comparison of Zotarolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease) trial is a single-blind randomized ZES versus PES clinical trial in 1,548 patients with de novo native coronary lesions; the primary end point-9-month target vessel failure-was previously reported, annual clinical follow-up is planned for 5 years, and this report describes the 3-year outcomes.ResultsThe ZES compared with PES reduced target vessel failure (12.3% vs. 15.9%, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58 to 1.00, p = 0.049), myocardial infarctions (MI) (2.1% vs. 4.9%, HR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.80, p = 0.005), and cardiac death plus MI (3.6% vs. 7.1%, HR: 0.52, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.82, p = 0.004). Although the overall 3-year rate of Academic Research Consortium definite/probable stent thrombosis did not differ significantly (1.1% vs. 1.7%, HR: 0.67, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.64, p = 0.380), VLST (between 1 and 3 years) was significantly reduced in ZES patients (1 event vs. 11 events; 0.1% vs. 1.6%, HR: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.71, p = 0.004). Ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization at 3 years was similar with ZES versus PES (6.5% vs. 6.1%, HR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.73 to 1.65, p = 0.662).ConclusionsThree-year follow-up results from the ENDEAVOR IV trial indicate similar antirestenosis efficacy but improved clinical safety associated with ZES compared with PES, due to significantly fewer peri-procedural and remote MIs associated with fewer VLST events. (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; NCT00217269).Copyright © 2010 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:

- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.