Search

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the thin-strut biodegradable-polymer everolimus-eluting platinum-chromium stent (EES) with the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stainless-steel stent (BES).BACKGROUND: Currently available drug-eluting coronary stents have been refined to reduce the risk for coronary events following implantation.METHODS: This randomized, multicenter, all-comers, noninferiority trial was undertaken at 3 sites in western Denmark. Patients with clinical indications for percutaneous coronary intervention were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either EES or BES. The primary endpoint, target lesion failure, was a composite of safety (cardiac death and myocardial infarction not clearly attributable to a nontarget lesion) and efficacy (target lesion revascularization) at 12 months, analyzed using intention-to-treat principles. The trial was powered to assess target lesion failure noninferiority of the EES compared with the BES with a predetermined noninferiority margin of 3%.RESULTS: A total of 1,385 patients were assigned to treatment with EES and 1,369 patients to treatment with BES. The analysis showed that 55 patients (4.0%) assigned to the EES and 60 (4.4%) assigned to the BES met the primary endpoint (absolute risk difference 0.4%; upper limit of 1-sided 95% confidence interval: 1.7%; p < 0.001).CONCLUSIONS: At 1-year follow-up, the EES was found to be noninferior to the BES with respect to target lesion failure. (Everolimus-eluting SYNERGY Stent Versus Biolimus-Eluting Biomatrix NeoFlex Stent-SORT-OUT VIII; NCT02093845).

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the thin-strut biodegradable-polymer everolimus-eluting platinum-chromium stent (EES) with the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stainless-steel stent (BES). Background: Currently available drug-eluting coronary stents have been refined to reduce the risk for coronary events following implantation. Methods: This randomized, multicenter, all-comers, noninferiority trial was undertaken at 3 sites in western Denmark. Patients with clinical indications for percutaneous coronary intervention were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either EES or BES. The primary endpoint, target lesion failure, was a composite of safety (cardiac death and myocardial infarction not clearly attributable to a nontarget lesion) and efficacy (target lesion revascularization) at 12 months, analyzed using intention-to-treat principles. The trial was powered to assess target lesion failure noninferiority of the EES compared with the BES with a predetermined noninferiority margin of 3%. Results: A total of 1,385 patients were assigned to treatment with EES and 1,369 patients to treatment with BES. The analysis showed that 55 patients (4.0%) assigned to the EES and 60 (4.4%) assigned to the BES met the primary endpoint (absolute risk difference 0.4%; upper limit of 1-sided 95% confidence interval: 1.7%; p < 0.001). Conclusions: At 1-year follow-up, the EES was found to be noninferior to the BES with respect to target lesion failure. (Everolimus-eluting SYNERGY Stent Versus Biolimus-Eluting Biomatrix NeoFlex Stent—SORT-OUT VIII; NCT02093845)

BACKGROUND: Among drug-eluting stents released to date, the sirolimus-eluting stent has demonstrated the least amount of late lumen loss, but its efficacy and safety have not been compared head-to-head with the next-generation everolimus-eluting stent. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials with Clinical Outcome IV trial was a randomized multicenter, single-blind, all-comer, two-arm, non-inferiority trial comparing the everolimus-eluting stent with the sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease. The primary end point was a composite of safety (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis) and efficacy (target vessel revascularization) parameters. The non-inferiority criterion was a risk difference of 0.015. Intention-to-treat analyses were done at 9-month and 18-month follow-up. 1,390 patients were assigned to receive the everolimus-eluting stent, and 1,384 patients were assigned to receive the sirolimus-eluting stent. At 9-month follow-up, 68 [4.9%] patients treated with the everolimus-eluting stent versus 72 [5.2%] patients treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent experienced the primary end point (hazard ratio (HR) =0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.67-1.31) (p for non-inferiority=0.01). At 18-month follow-up, this differential remained: 99 [7.2%] patients treated with the everolimus-eluting stent versus 105 [7.6%] (HR=0.94, 95% CI: 0.71-1.23). At 9-month follow-up, rate of definite stent thrombosis was higher in the sirolimus-eluting group (2 [0.1%] patients versus 9 [0.7%] patients, (HR=0.22, 95% CI:0.05-1.02)).At 18-monthfollow-up, this difference was sustained (3 [0.2%] patients versus 12 [0.9%] patients; (HR=0.25, 95% CI:0.07-0.88). CONCLUSIONS: The everolimus-eluting stent was found to be non-inferior to the sirolimus-eluting stent. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT00552877.