Search

ObjectivesThis study was designed to evaluate long-term clinical and economic outcomes for subjects receiving Endeavor drug-eluting versus Driver bare-metal stents (both Medtronic CardioVascular, Santa Rosa, California).BackgroundEarly studies found that the drug-eluting stent (DES) was a clinically and economically attractive alternative to the bare-metal stent; however, associations between DES and very late stent thrombosis suggest that longer follow-up is required.MethodsWe used clinical, resource use and follow-up data from 1,197 subjects randomized to receive Endeavor (n = 598) versus Driver (n = 599) stents in ENDEAVOR II (Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of the Medtronic AVE ABT-578 Eluting Driver Coronary Stent in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) study with Medicare cost weights and quality of life adjustments applied from secondary sources. We compared differences through 4-year follow-up (1,440 days).ResultsPatients in both treatment groups had similar baseline characteristics. The use of Endeavor versus Driver reduced 4-year target vessel revascularization rates per 100 subjects (10.4 vs. 21.5; difference: −11.1; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −16.0 to −6.1; p < 0.001), with no difference in the rates per 100 subjects of death (5.0 vs. 5.2; difference: −0.2; 95% CI: −2.7 to 2.4; p = 0.90) or nonfatal myocardial infarction (3.2 vs. 4.4; difference: −1.2; 95% CI: −3.4 to 1.0; p = 0.29). After discounting at a 3% annual rate, there were no differences in quality-adjusted survival days (1,093 vs. 1,090; difference: 3; 95% CI: −13 to 19; p = 0.69) and total medical costs ($21,483 vs. $21,680; difference: −$198; 95% CI: −$1,608 to $1,207; p = 0.78).ConclusionsThe use of Endeavor versus Driver was associated with a significant reduction in target vessel revascularization through 4-year follow-up with no difference in death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, quality-adjusted survival, or total medical costs. These results are comparable to those for other studies evaluating drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents. (Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of the Medtronic AVE ABT-578 Eluting Driver Coronary Stent in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions [ENDEAVOR II]; NCT00614848)

ObjectivesThis study sought to determine the effect of radial access on outcomes in women undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using a registry-based randomized trial.BackgroundWomen are at increased risk of bleeding and vascular complications after PCI. The role of radial access in women is unclear.MethodsWomen undergoing cardiac catheterization or PCI were randomized to radial or femoral arterial access. Data from the CathPCI Registry and trial-specific data were merged into a final study database. The primary efficacy endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding or vascular complications requiring intervention. The primary feasibility endpoint was access site crossover. The primary analysis cohort was the subgroup undergoing PCI; sensitivity analyses were conducted in the total randomized population.ResultsThe trial was stopped early for a lower than expected event rate. A total of 1,787 women (691 undergoing PCI) were randomized at 60 sites. There was no significant difference in the primary efficacy endpoint between radial or femoral access among women undergoing PCI (radial 1.2% vs. 2.9% femoral, odds ratio [OR]: 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.12 to 1.27); among women undergoing cardiac catheterization or PCI, radial access significantly reduced bleeding and vascular complications (0.6% vs. 1.7%; OR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.90). Access site crossover was significantly higher among women assigned to radial access (PCI cohort: 6.1% vs. 1.7%; OR: 3.65; 95% CI: 1.45 to 9.17); total randomized cohort: (6.7% vs. 1.9%; OR: 3.70; 95% CI: 2.14 to 6.40). More women preferred radial access.ConclusionsIn this pragmatic trial, which was terminated early, the radial approach did not significantly reduce bleeding or vascular complications in women undergoing PCI. Access site crossover occurred more often in women assigned to radial access. (SAFE-PCI for Women; NCT01406236)

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes for subjects receiving zotarolimus-eluting (ZES) (n = 323) versus sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) (n = 113) in the ENDEAVOR III (Randomized Controlled Trial of the Medtronic Endeavor Drug [ABT-578] Eluting Coronary Stent System Versus the Cypher Sirolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent System in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) clinical trial.BackgroundAlthough previous clinical trials have evaluated long-term clinical outcome for drug-eluting stents, none considered their economic implications.MethodsWe analyzed case report form information with quality-of-life adjustment and Medicare cost weights applied from secondary sources; compared differences in clinical outcomes, quality-adjusted survival, medical resource use, and medical costs; and evaluated cost-effectiveness through 3-year follow-up.ResultsThe use of ZES versus SES reduced the 3-year rates/100 subjects of death or myocardial infarction (3.9 vs. 10.8; difference, −6.9; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −13.0 to 0.8; p = 0.028), with no difference in target vessel revascularization rates (17.9 vs. 12.2; difference, 5.7; 95% CI: −3.7 to 15.1; p = 0.23) but greater use of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery (3.5 vs. 0.0; difference 3.5; 95% CI: 1.3 to 5.7; p = 0.002). After discounting at 3% per annum, total medical costs for ZES versus SES were similar ($23,353 vs. $21,657; difference, $1,696; 95% CI: −$1,089 to $4,482, p = 0.23), and the 3-year cost-effectiveness ratio was $57,002/quality-adjusted life year.ConclusionsDespite a reduction in death or myocardial infarction and no difference in total revascularizations, medical costs were not decreased due to increased CABG repeat revascularization procedures for subjects receiving ZES versus SES. If future trials observe similar differences, improved safety with no difference in medical costs, the use of ZES versus SES will be a clinically and economically attractive treatment strategy. (The Medtronic Endeavor III Drug Eluting Coronary Stent System Clinical Trial [ENDEAVOR III]; NCT00217256)