Search

Background: Although some studies have investigated sex-related outcomes up to 5 years after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), analyses at longer follow-up (ie, to 10 years) in large cohorts treated exclusively with drug-eluting stent (DES) platforms are lacking. Therefore, this study aimed to define whether sex-related differences in long-term outcomes after PCI persist both in the DES era and at longer-term follow-up., Methods: Individual data of patients treated with DES in 5 randomized controlled trials with 10-year follow-up were pooled. Patients were divided into 2 groups by sex. The analysis of individual participant data was performed using a 1-stage approach by entering a clustering effect by parent study in all univariable and multivariable models focusing on sex. The main outcomes of interest for this analysis included cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and definite stent thrombosis to 10 years after PCI. Survival was analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate the time to first event, and differences between the 2 groups were tested with the log-rank test. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were calculated with a Cox proportional hazards model. Conventional multivariable analyses with adjustment for relevant variables were performed., Results: Among 9700 patients undergoing PCI with DES implantation included in the present analysis, 2296 were women and 7404 were men. Through to 10 years, cardiovascular death occurred in 407 of the 2296 female patients and 1012 of the 7404 male patients (adjusted HR [HR adj ], 0.94 [95% CI, 0.80-1.11]). Female sex was associated with a lower risk of repeat revascularization of the target lesion (HR adj , 0.80 [95% CI, 0.74-0.87]), target vessel (HR adj , 0.81 [95% CI, 0.76-0.87]), and nontarget vessels (HR adj , 0.69 [95% CI, 0.62-0.77]). Compared with male patients, female patients displayed an increased risk of myocardial infarction in the first 30 days after PCI with DES (HR adj , 1.65 [95% CI, 1.24-2.19]) but a comparable risk of myocardial infarction thereafter. The risk of definite stent thrombosis was not significantly different between female and male patients (HR adj , 1.14 [95% CI, 0.89-1.47])., Conclusions: Through to 10-year follow-up after PCI with DES, female patients are at increased risk of early myocardial infarction, receive fewer repeat revascularizations, and have no difference in cardiovascular mortality compared with male patients.

Introduction and Objectives: The DECADE cooperation is a pooled analysis of individual patient data from drug-eluting stent (DES) trials with a 10-year follow-up. This analysis reports the risk of definite stent thrombosis (ST) through to 10 years after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients treated with early- and new-generation DES., Methods: Individual patient data from 5 DES trials with a 10-year follow-up were pooled. The primary endpoint was definite ST up to 10 years after PCI. Patients were divided into 2 groups as per the generation of DES implanted (early and new DES). Individual participant data were analyzed using a 1-stage approach., Results: We included 9700 patients, 6866 in the new DES group and 2834 in the early DES group. Through to 10 years, definite ST occurred in 69 of 6866 patients treated with new DES and in 91 of 2834 patients treated with early DES (1.0% vs 3.5%, adjusted hazard ratio, 0.32; 95%CI, 0.23-0.45). The rate of definite ST was lower in the new DES group than in the early DES group from 1 to 5 years (rate ratio, 0.14; 95%CI, 0.08-0.26) and from 5 to 10 years (rate ratio, 0.23; 95%CI, 0.08-0.61) after PCI., Conclusions: The incidence of definite ST through to 10 years after PCI with new-generation DES was 1%. New-generation DES are associated with a lower 10-year incidence of definite ST than early-generation DES, particularly beyond 1 year after PCI., (Copyright © 2022 Sociedad Española de Cardiología. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

This study aimed to examine the 30-day risk of myocardial infarction (MI) and death in patients who underwent noncardiac surgery within 1 year after coronary drug-eluting stent implantation for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or stable angina pectoris (SAP) and to compare it with the risk in surgical patients without known coronary artery disease. Patients with drug-eluting stent implantation for ACS (n = 2,291) or SAP (n = 1,804) who underwent noncardiac surgery were compared with a cohort from the general population without known coronary artery disease matched on the surgical procedure, hospital contact type, gender, and age. In patients with ACS, the 30-day MI risk was markedly increased when surgery was performed within 1 month after stenting (10% vs 0.8%; adjusted odds ratio [OR adj ] 20.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 8.85 to 45.6), whereas mortality was comparable (10% vs 8%, OR adj 1.17, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.79). When surgery was performed between 1 and 12 months after stenting, the 30-day absolute risk for MI was low but higher than in the comparison cohort (0.6% vs 0.2%, OR adj 2.18, 95% CI 0.89 to 5.38), whereas the mortality risks were similar (2.0% vs 1.8%, OR adj 1.03, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.55). In patients with SAP, the 30-day MI risk was low but higher than in the comparison cohort (0.4% vs 0.2%, OR adj 1.90, 95% CI 0.70 to 5.14), whereas the mortality risks were similar (2.2% vs 2.1%, OR adj 0.91, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.37). In conclusion, patients with ACS and SAP who underwent surgery between 1 and 12 months after stent implantation had a risk for MI and death that was similar to the risk observed in surgical patients without coronary artery disease., Competing Interests: Disclosures The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We compared 10-year clinical outcomes in diabetes and nondiabetes patients treated with Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting (ZES) or Cypher sirolimus-eluting coronary stents (SES). A total of 1,162 patients were randomized to ZES (169 with diabetes) and 1,170 patients were randomized to SES (168 with diabetes). Patients were further stratified by diabetes status at the time of inclusion. A subgroup of patients with diabetes (n = 88) underwent angiographic re-evaluation 10 months after stent implantation. End points included a combined end point of death or myocardial infarction, and the individual end points of death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization. In patients with diabetes, we found no difference in the combined end point (odds ratio [OR] 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53 to 1.24), death (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.25), or in MI (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.91). However, diabetics with ZES more frequently underwent coronary revascularization compared with SES patients (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.66). In patients without diabetes, ZES and SES had similar 10-year rates of all end points (death: OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.39; MI: OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.05; revascularization: OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.09). Landmark analysis from 5 to 10 years showed no difference in outcomes between SES and ZES in either subgroup. In conclusion, at 10 years, SES and ZES performed similarly in patients with and without diabetes. Although coronary revascularization was more prevalent in diabetes patients with ZES, this may, in part, have been related to the angiographic follow-up that was offered to a subgroup of diabetes patients., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: The current guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology and European Society of Anaesthesiology on non-cardiac surgery (ESC/ESA-NCS) divide surgical procedures into those associated with low risk (<1%), intermediate risk (1-5%), and high risk (>5%) of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Evaluating surgical risk might be particularly appropriate in patients with recent stent implantation, and thus we validated the ESC/ESA-NCS classification in patients undergoing NCS within 1 year after coronary drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation., Methods and Results: By record-linking the Western Denmark Heart Registry and the Danish National Patient Registry, we identified 4046 patients, who underwent NCS between 1 and 12 months after DES implantation. Primary outcomes were MACE [cardiac death and myocardial infarction (MI)] and a combined endpoint of mortality and MI within 30 days after surgery. Both MACE (low risk 0.6%, intermediate risk 1.2%, and high risk 3.4%) and the combined endpoint of mortality and MI (1.5%, 4.6%, and 14.9%) were associated with the ESC/ESA-NCS classification. As compared with low-risk surgery, the odds ratios (OR) for MACE were 1.9 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9-4.1] for intermediate-risk surgery and 5.8 (95% CI 1.7-20.1) for high-risk surgery. For the combined endpoint of mortality and MI, the OR's were 3.1 (95% CI 2.1-4.7) for intermediate-risk surgery and 11.3 (95% CI 5.9-21.9) for high-risk surgery., Conclusion: The ESC/ESA-NCS classification is a valid tool to predict the risk of both MACE and the combined endpoint of mortality and MI for patients undergoing NCS.

Background: In the risk assessment of patients considered for non-cardiac surgery and with recent coronary stent implantation, coronary drug-eluting stent implantation procedure characteristics may be taken into account. We aimed to evaluate associations between coronary drug-eluting stent implantation procedure characteristics and the risk of myocardial infarction and all-cause death within 30 days after non-cardiac surgery., Design: Patients with coronary drug-eluting stents were identified using the Western Denmark Heart Registry. Surgical procedures performed after stent implantation were detected using the Danish National Patient Registry. We used registry-based detection of myocardial infarction and all-cause death., Results: Of 22 590 patients treated with drug-eluting stents between 2005 and 2012, 4046 underwent non-cardiac surgery within 1 and 12 months after stent implantation. We found no significant association between the risk of myocardial infarction or all-cause death within 30 days after surgery and number of arteries treated (1 [reference] vs more), number of lesions treated (1 [reference] vs more), segments treated (left main and proximal left anterior descending artery vs other [reference]), total stent length (<20 mm [reference] vs ≥20 mm), number of stents (1 [reference] vs >1) and largest balloon diameter (≥3 mm [reference] vs <3 mm). All-cause death, but not myocardial infarction, risk was lower among patients treated with first-generation vs second-generation stents (odds ratio 0.58)., Conclusions: We identified no significant associations between stent implantation procedure characteristics and risk of myocardial infarction or all-cause death among patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. All-cause death was lower with first- vs second-generation drug-eluting stents., (© 2018 Stichting European Society for Clinical Investigation Journal Foundation.)

Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention in complex bifurcation lesions is prone to suboptimal implantation results and is associated with increased risk of subsequent clinical events. Angiographic ambiguity is high during bifurcation stenting, but it is unknown if procedural guidance by intravascular optical coherence tomography (OCT) improves clinical outcome., Methods and Design: OCTOBER is a randomized, investigator-initiated, multicenter trial aimed to show superiority of OCT-guided stent implantation compared to standard angiographic-guided implantation in bifurcation lesions. The primary outcome measure is a 2-year composite end point of cardiac death, target lesion myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. The calculated sample size is 1,200 patients in total, and allocation is 1:1. Eligible patients have stable or unstable angina pectoris or stabilized non–ST elevation myocardial infarction, and a coronary bifurcation lesion with significant main vessel stenosis and more than 50 % stenosis in a side branch with a reference diameter ≥2.5mm. Treatment is performed by the provisional side branch stenting technique or 2-stent techniques, and the systematic OCT guiding protocol is aimed to evaluate (1) plaque preparation, (2) lesion length, (3) segmental reference sizes, (4) lesion coverage, (5) stent expansion, (6) malapposition, (7) wire positions, and (8) ostial results., Implications: A positive outcome of the OCTOBER trial may establish OCT as a routine tool for optimization of complex percutaneous coronary intervention, whereas a negative result would indicate that OCT remains a tool for ad hoc evaluation in selected cases., (© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The Combo stent (OrbusNeich, Hoevelaken, the Netherlands) combining an abluminal, bioabsorbable polymer eluting sirolimus with a luminal CD34+ antibody to capture endothelial progenitor cells has been developed to further improve safety and efficacy of coronary interventions. We have designed a large-scale registry-based randomized clinical trial to compare the Combo stent to the Orsiro stent (Biotronik, Bülach, Switzerland) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention., Methods: The SORT OUT X study will randomly assign 3,140 patients to treatment with Combo or Orsiro stents at 3 sites in Western Denmark. Patients are eligible if they are ≥18 years old, have chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes, and have ≥1 coronary lesion with >50% diameter stenosis requiring treatment with a drug-eluting stent. The primary end point target lesion failure is a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (not related to other than index lesion), or target lesion revascularization within 12 months. Clinically driven event detection will be derived from validated Danish registries. An event rate of 4.2% is assumed in each stent group. With a sample size of 1,570 patients in each treatment arm, a 2-group large-sample normal approximation test of proportions with a 1-sided 5% significance level will have 90% power to detect noninferiority of the Combo stent compared with the Orsiro stent with a predetermined noninferiority margin of 2.1%., Conclusion: The SORT OUT X trial will determine whether the dual-therapy Combo stent is noninferior to the Orsiro stent with respect to clinically driven events (ClinicalTrials.govNCT03216733)., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To show non-inferiority of the 67- or 87 µm thick, sirolimus-eluting Orsiro drug eluting stent (DES) to the 122 µm thick, biolimus-eluting Nobori DES regarding size of vessel lumen outside the stent at 13-month follow-up., Methods and Results: This study was a substudy to the SORT-OUT VII trial, a prospective, 1:1-randomized, comparison of the two stents in patients with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome. Optical coherence tomography was acquired after percutaneous coronary intervention and at 13-month follow-up. The substudy was powered to access non-inferiority (Δ = 0.60 mm2) of the Orsiro DES to the Nobori DES for the primary endpoint of mean extra stent lumen (ESL) i.e. vessel lumen outside the stent at 13-month follow-up. We randomized 124 patients to Orsiro (n = 60) or Nobori (n = 64). Due to a difference in the one-sided 95%-confidence interval of 0.26 mm2, but increased to 0.82 mm2 after appropriate log-transformation, it could not be rejected that Orsiro exceeded the non-inferiority limit. Testing for superiority, Orsiro had a significantly larger mean ESL at follow-up (Orsiro: 0.11 mm2 [0.02;0.30] mm2, Nobori: 0.03 mm2 [0.00;0.17] mm2, P = 0.04). Stent strut coverage was, Orsiro: 97.6 % [93.8;99.4]%, and Nobori: 96.3 % [90.5;98,6]% (P = 0.13)., Conclusion: Orsiro DES had a significantly larger mean ESL at follow-up and it could not be excluded that Orsiro exceeded the limit for non-inferiority. Nobori DES had a more heterogeneous distribution of neointima but stent strut coverage did not differ significantly between the two stents., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2017. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims: Our aim was to report the long-term safety and efficacy of the biodegradable polymer-coated biolimus- eluting Nobori stent compared to the durable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting CYPHER stent., Methods and Results: SORT OUT V randomised 2,468 patients 1:1 to the Nobori (n=1,229) versus the CYPHER stent (n=1,239). Clinically driven event detection based on Danish registries was used. The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis) and efficacy (target vessel revascularisation). Individual components of the primary endpoint comprise the secondary endpoints. At five-year follow-up, the composite endpoint rate was found to be similar in patients treated with the two study stents (Nobori 182/1,229 [14.8%] vs. CYPHER 197/1,239 [15.8%]; odds ratio [OR] 0.93, 95% CI: 0.75-1.16; p=0.53). The rates of definite stent thrombosis were also found to be similar in patients treated with the two study stents (Nobori 23/1,229 [1.9%] vs. CYPHER 18/1,239 [1.5%]; OR 1.31, 95% CI: 0.70-2.47; p=0.40), as were the other secondary endpoints., Conclusions: At five-year follow-up, the Nobori stent with a biodegradable polymer coating provided a similar safety and efficacy profile when compared to the durable polymer first-generation CYPHER stent.

Objectives: The authors sought to compare the safety and efficacy of the biocompatible durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent with the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent in unselected coronary patients., Background: Biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stents are superior to first-generation durable-polymer drug-eluting stents in long-term randomized all-comer trials. Long-term data comparing them to second-generation durable-polymer drug-eluting stents are lacking., Methods: The study was a randomized, multicenter, all-comer, noninferiority trial in patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes and at least 1 coronary artery lesion requiring treatment with a drug-eluting stent. Endpoints included major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of safety (cardiac death and myocardial infarction not clearly attributable to a non-target lesion) and efficacy (target lesion revascularization); the individual endpoints of MACE; all-cause mortality; any myocardial infarction; target vessel revascularization; and definite or probable stent thrombosis at 36 months., Results: From March 2011 to August 2012, 2,999 patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either the zotarolimus-eluting (1,502 patients) or the biolimus-eluting (1,497 patients) stent. At 3-year follow-up, MACE occurred in 128 (8.6%) patients assigned to the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent and in 144 (9.6%) assigned to the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent (p = 0.36). Occurrence of cardiac death (2.7% vs. 3.4%), myocardial infarction not clearly attributable to a non-target lesion (2.7% vs. 2.5%), and target lesion revascularization (5.4% vs. 5.5%) did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Definite very late stent thrombosis occurred in 6 (0.4%) patients assigned to the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent and in 10 (0.7%) assigned to the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent (p = 0.33)., Conclusions: At 3-year follow-up, the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent and the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent were similar in clinical outcome, with no significant difference in safety and efficacy outcomes, including stent thrombosis., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Guidelines recommend postponing surgery for at least 6 months after treatment with a drug-eluting stent by percutaneous coronary intervention (DES-PCI)., Objectives: The goal of this study was to evaluate the surgical risk associated with DES-PCI compared with that in nonstented patients without ischemic heart disease (IHD)., Methods: Between 2005 and 2012, a total of 22,590 patients underwent DES-PCI in western Denmark. By record-linking the Western Denmark Heart Registry and the Danish National Patient Register, we evaluated 4,303 DES-PCI-treated patients with a surgical procedure and compared them with a control group of patients without previous IHD undergoing similar surgical procedures (n = 20,232). Events of interest were myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death, and all-cause mortality within 30 days after surgery., Results: Surgery in DES-PCI-treated patients was associated with an increased risk of MI (1.6% vs. 0.2%; odds ratio [OR]: 4.82; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.25 to 7.16) and cardiac death (1.0% vs. 0.2%; OR: 5.87; 95% CI: 3.60 to 9.58) but not all-cause mortality (3.1% vs. 2.7%; OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.38). When stratified for time from PCI to surgery, only surgery within the first month was associated with a significant increased risk of events., Conclusions: Patients requiring surgery within 12 months after DES-PCI had an increased risk of MI and cardiac death compared with patients without IHD. The increased risk was only present within the first month after DES-PCI, suggesting that surgery might be undertaken earlier than currently recommended., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Surgery may necessitate interruption of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) within the first year after coronary drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation. We conducted a population-based cohort study to assess the rate of surgery within the first year after DES implantation, surgery-associated major adverse cardiac events (MACE), reoperation for bleeding within 30 days after surgery, and two nested case-control analyses to explore any association between preoperative antiplatelet therapy, MACE, and reoperation for bleeding. In the cohort of 22,654 patients treated with DES, 1,944 patients (8.6 %) underwent moderate- to high-risk surgery within 12 months. Of these, 62 (3.2 %) experienced MACE and 54 (2.8 %) needed reoperation for bleeding within 30 days. In the nested case-control analyses of 458 cases and controls, where 70 % (n=324) had a first generation DES, absence of preoperative antiplatelet therapy was associated with an increased MACE rate (OR 2.36, 95 % CI 1.02-5.48) compared to single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) or DAPT. Preoperative SAPT versus DAPT showed no difference in MACE rates (OR 0.85, 95 % CI 0.30-2.40). Surgery within the first month was associated with increased MACE rate (OR 4.67, 95 % CI 2.22-9.83) compared to surgery 2-12 months after DES implantation. Absence of preoperative antiplatelet therapy did not reduce reoperation for bleeding as compared to patients on SAPT or DAPT (OR 1.32, 95 % CI 0.56-3.12). In conclusion, absence of preoperative antiplatelet therapy and surgery within the first month after DES implantation were associated with increased MACE rates.

Background: Coronary drug-eluting stents with biodegradable polymers have been designed to improve safety and efficacy., Methods and Results: The Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials With Clinical Outcome (SORT OUT) VII trial-a large-scale registry-based randomized, multicenter, single-blind, 2-arm, noninferiority trial-compared 2 biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents: the thin-strut cobalt-chromium sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent and the stainless steel biolimus-eluting Nobori stent in an all-comer patient population. The primary end point target lesion failure was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (not related to other than index lesion), or target lesion revascularization within 1 year, analyzed by intention to treat (noninferiority margin of 3.0%). Clinically driven event detection based on Danish registries was used. A total of 1261 patients were assigned to receive the sirolimus-eluting stent (1590 lesions) and 1264 patients to the biolimus-eluting stent (1588 lesions). At 1 year, the composite end point target lesion failure occurred in 48 patients (3.8%) in the sirolimus-eluting group and in 58 patients (4.6%) in the biolimus-eluting group (absolute risk difference, -0.78% [upper limit of 1-sided 95% confidence interval, 0.61%]; P<0.0001). Rates of definite stent thrombosis occurred in 5 (0.4%) of the sirolimus-eluting group compared with 15 (1.2%) biolimus-eluting stent-treated patients (rate ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.92; P=0.034), which largely was attributable to a lower risk of subacute definite stent thrombosis: 0.1% versus 0.6% (rate ratio, 0.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-1.00; P=0.05)., Conclusions: The thin-strut sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent was noninferior to the biolimus-eluting Nobori stent in unselected patients for target lesion failure at 1 year., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01879358., (© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: New-generation drug-eluting coronary stents have reduced the risk of coronary events, especially in patients with complex disease or lesions. To what extent different stent platforms, polymers, and antiproliferative drugs affect outcomes, however, is unclear. We investigated the safety and efficacy of a third-generation stent by comparing a highly biocompatible durable-polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent with a biodegradable-polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent., Methods: This open-label, randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial was done at three sites across western Denmark. All patients who presented with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes and at least one coronary artery lesion (more than 50% stenosis) from March, 2011, to August, 2012, were assessed for eligibility. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent or the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent. The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death and myocardial infarction not clearly attributable to a non-target lesion) and efficacy (target-lesion revascularisation) at 12 months, analysed by intention to treat. The trial was powered to assess non-inferiority of durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent compared with the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent with a predetermined non-inferiority margin of 0·025. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01956448., Findings: Of 7103 screened, 1502 patients with 1883 lesions were assigned to receive the durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent and 1497 patients with 1791 lesions to receive the biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stent. 79 (5·3%) and 75 (5·0%) patients, respectively, met the primary endpoint (absolute risk difference 0·0025, upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 0·016%; p=0·004). The individual components of the primary endpoint did not differ significantly between stent types at 12 months., Interpretation: The durable-polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent was non-inferior to the biodegradable-polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent in unselected patients., Funding: Medtronic Cardiovascular and Biosensors Interventional Technologies., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

We compared 5-year clinical outcomes in diabetic and nondiabetic patients treated with Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZESs; Endeavor Sprint, Medtronic, Santa Rosa, California) or Cypher sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs; Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Warren, New Jersey) coronary implantation. We randomized 2,332 patients to either ZESs (n = 1,162, n = 169 diabetic patients) or SESs (n = 1,170, n = 168 diabetic patients) stratified according to presence or absence of diabetes mellitus. End points included major adverse cardiac event (MACE), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and definite stent thrombosis. Among diabetic patients, MACE occurred more frequently in patients treated with ZESs than SESs (48 [28.4%] vs 31 [18.5%]; odds ratio [OR] 1.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05 to 2.93, p = 0.032) because of a higher rate of TVR (32 [18.9%] vs 14 [8.3%]; OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.32 to 5.02, p = 0.006). Among nondiabetic patients, ZES and SES had similar MACE rates at 5-year follow-up but SES was associated with a significantly higher risk of definite stent thrombosis (10 [1.0%] vs 23 [2.3%]; OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.91, p = 0.028). Moreover, during the last 4 years, ZES had fewer MACE, TVR, and stent thrombosis events among nondiabetic patients. In conclusion, SES remains superior to ZES in patients with diabetes throughout the 5-year follow-up, however, among nondiabetic patients, SES demonstrated a highly dynamic performance with favorable initial results followed by a late catch-up that included an overall higher risk of stent thrombosis., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The study sought to compare the risk of late outcome with a focus on very late definite stent thrombosis of the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) with that of the sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) at 3-year follow-up., Background: In the SORT OUT IV (SORT OUT IV Trial), comparing the EES with the SES in patients with coronary artery disease, the EES was noninferior to the SES at 9 months. The SORT OUT IV trial provides long-term head-to-head randomized comparison of the EES with the SES., Methods: We prospectively randomized 2,774 patients in the SORT OUT IV trial. Follow-up through 3 years was complete in 2,771 patients (99.9%). The 3-year pre-specified endpoints were composites of safety and efficacy (major adverse cardiac events [MACE]: cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and definite stent thrombosis)., Results: At 3 years, the composite endpoint MACE occurred in 9.8% of the EES group and in 11.1% of the SES group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70 to 1.12). Overall rate of definite stent thrombosis was lower in the EES group (0.2% vs. 1.4%; HR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.50), which was largely attributable to a lower risk of very late definite stent thrombosis: 0.1% versus 0.8% (HR: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.70)., Conclusions: At 3-year follow-up, the MACE rate did not differ significantly between EES- and SES-treated patients. A significant reduction of overall and very late definite stent thrombosis was found in the EES group. (The SORT OUT IV TRIAL [SORT OUT IV]; NCT00552877)., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In head-to-head comparisons of coronary drug-eluting stents, the primary endpoint is traditionally assessed after 9-12 months. However, the optimum timepoint for this assessment remains unclear. In this study, we assessed clinical outcomes at up to 5 years' follow-up in patients who received two different types of drug-eluting stents., Methods: We undertook this multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial at five percutaneous coronary intervention centres in Denmark. We randomly allocated 2332 eligible adult patients (≥18 years of age) with an indication for drug-eluting stent implantation to the zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor Sprint stent (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA, USA) or the sirolimus-eluting Cypher Select Plus stent (Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Warren, NJ, USA). Randomisation of participants was achieved by computer-generated block randomisation and a telephone allocation service. The primary endpoint of the SORT OUT III study was a composite of major adverse cardiac events-cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation-at 9 months' follow-up. In this study, endpoints included the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events and definite stent thrombosis at follow-up times of up to 5 years. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00660478., Findings: We randomly allocated 1162 patients to receive the zotarolimus-eluting stent and 1170 to the sirolimus-eluting stent. At 5-year follow-up, rates of major adverse cardiac events were similar in patients treated with both types of stents (zotarolimus-eluting stents 197/1162 [17.0%] vs sirolimus-eluting stents 182/1170 [15.6%]; odds ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% CI 0.88-1.37; p=0.40). This finding was indicative of the directly contrasting results for rates of major adverse cardiac events at 1-year follow up (zotarolimus 93/1162 [8.0%] vs sirolimus 46/1170 [3.9%]; OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.48-3.07; p<0.0001) compared with those at follow-up between 1 and 5 years (104 [9.0%] vs 136 [11.6%]; OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59-1.02; p=0.071). At 1-year follow-up, definite stent thrombosis was more frequent after implantation of the zotarolimus-eluting stent (13/1162 [1.1%]) than the sirolimus-eluting stent (4/1170 [0.3%]; OR 3.34, 95% CI 1.08-10.3; p=0.036), whereas the opposite finding was recorded for between 1 and 5 years' follow-up (zotarolimus-eluting stent 1/1162 [0.1%] vs sirolimus-eluting stent 21/1170 [1.8%], OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01-0.36; p=0.003). 26 of 88 (30%) target lesion revascularisations in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group occurred between 1 and 5 years' follow-up, whereas 54 of 70 (77%) of those in the sirolimus-eluting stent group occurred during this follow-up period., Interpretation: The superiority of sirolimus-eluting stents compared with zotarolimus-eluting stents at 1-year follow-up was lost after 5 years. The traditional 1-year primary endpoint assessment therefore might be insufficient to predict 5-year clinical outcomes in patients treated with coronary drug-eluting stent implantation., Funding: Cordis and Medtronic., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aims: The aim of this substudy of the SORT OUT IV trial was to compare clinical outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and stable angina pectoris (SAP) treated with everolimus-eluting stents (EES) or sirolimus-eluting stents (SES)., Methods and Results: We performed a post hoc subgroup analysis of data from SORT OUT IV. Of 2,705 patients, 1,178 (43.5%) patients had ACS and were treated with EES (n=580) or SES (n=598), and 1,527 (56.5%) patients had SAP and were treated with EES (n=773) or SES (n=754). The primary composite endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE): cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis, or target vessel revascularisation within 18 months. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the endpoints. At 18-month follow-up, patients with ACS had higher rates of MACE compared to patients with SAP (8.1% versus 6.7%; HR=1.23, 95% CI: 0.93-1.62). MACE did not differ significantly between ACS patients treated with EES or SES (7.3% versus 8.9%; HR=0.81, 95% CI: 0.54-1.22) nor between SAP patients treated with EES or SES (6.9% versus 6.5%; HR=1.05, 95% CI: 0.71-1.55)., Conclusions: EES and SES performed similarly with respect to MACE at 18-month follow-up in patients with ACS and SAP.

Background: Third-generation biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents might reduce the risk of stent thrombosis compared with first-generation permanent polymer drug-eluting stents. We aimed to further investigate the effects of a biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent in a population-based setting., Methods: This randomised, multicentre, all-comer, non-inferiority trial was undertaken at three sites across western Denmark. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes, and at least one coronary artery lesion (>50% diameter stenosis). We randomly assigned patients (1:1) using an independently managed computer-generated allocation sequence to receive either a biolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer stent (Nobori, Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) or a sirolimus-eluting permanent polymer stent (Cypher Select Plus, Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Warren, NJ, USA). The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis) and efficacy (target vessel revascularisation) at 9 months, analysed by intention to treat (non-inferiority margin of 0·02). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01254981., Findings: From July, 2009, to January, 2011, we assigned 1229 patients (1532 lesions) to receive the biolimus-eluting stent and 1239 (1555 lesions) to receive the sirolimus-eluting stent. One patient was lost to follow-up because of emigration. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that 50 (4·1%) patients who were assigned the biolimus-eluting stent and 39 (3·1%) who were assigned the sirolimus-eluting stent met the primary endpoint (risk difference 0·9% [upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 2·1%]; p(non-inferiority)=0·06). Significantly more patients in the biolimus-eluting stent group had definite stent thrombosis at 12 months than did those in the sirolimus-eluting stent group (9 [0·7%] vs 2 [0·2%], risk difference 0·6% [95% CI 0·0-1·1]; p=0·034). Per-protocol analysis showed that 45 (3·8%) of 1193 patients who received a biolimus-eluting stent and 39 (3·2%) of 1208 who received a sirolimus-eluting stent met the primary endpoint (risk difference 0·5% [upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 1·8%]; p(non-inferiority)=0·03)., Interpretation: At 1 year follow-up, the biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting Nobori stent did not improve clinical results compared with a first-generation sirolimus-eluting stent. We will need to obtain long-term data before we can make recommendations for the role of this biolimus-eluting stent in routine clinical practice., Funding: Terumo and Cordis (Johnson & Johnson)., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Diabetes is associated with increased risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) after percutaneous coronary intervention. The purpose of this substudy of the SORT OUT IV trial was to compare clinical outcomes in patients with and without diabetes mellitus treated with everolimus-eluting stents (EESs) or sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs). In total 2,774 patients (390 with diabetes, 14.1%) were randomized to stent implantation with EESs (n = 1,390, diabetes in 14.0%) or SESs (n = 1,384, diabetes in 14.2%). Randomization was stratified by presence/absence of diabetes. The primary end point was MACEs, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, or target vessel revascularization within 18 months. MACEs were higher in diabetic than in nondiabetic patients (13.1% vs 6.4%, hazard ratio [HR] 2.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.51 to 2.86). In diabetic patients, MACEs were seen in 10.3% of those treated with EESs and in 15.8% of those treated with SESs (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.11). In nondiabetic patients, MACEs occurred in 6.6% of EES-treated and in 6.3% SES-treated patients (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.46). In diabetics, cardiac death occurred in 3.1% of EES-treated and in 4.6% of SES-treated patients (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.89), myocardial infarction occurred in 0.5% of EES-treated and in 3.6% of SES-treated patients (HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.16), and clinically driven target lesion revascularization was needed in 3.1% of EES-treated and in 7.7% of SES-treated patients (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.02). No interaction between diabetes status and type of drug-eluting stent was found for the end points. In conclusion, patients with diabetes have higher MACE rates than nondiabetics. No significant differences in safety or efficacy outcomes after EES or SES implantation were present in nondiabetic or diabetic patients., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: We evaluated the effectiveness and safety of a zotarolimus-eluting (ZES) versus a sirolimus-eluting (SES) coronary stent in a large cohort of patients treated with one of these stents in Western Denmark., Methods: A total of 6,122 patients treated with ZES (n=2,282) or SES (n=3,840) were followed for up to 27 months. We ascertained clinical outcomes based on national medical databases., Results: Incidence of target lesion revascularization (no. per 100 person-years) was 5.3 in the ZES group compared to 1.9 in the SES group (adjusted hazard ratio (HR)=2.19, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.39-3.47; p=0.001). All-cause mortality was also higher in the ZES group (ZES: 6.3; SES: 3.3; adjusted HR=1.34, 95% CI: 1.05-1.72; p=0.02), while stent thrombosis (ZES: 1.2; SES: 0.5; adjusted HR=1.98, 95% CI: 0.75-5.23; p=0.14) did not differ significantly., Conclusions: In agreement with previously published randomised data, this observational study indicated that the ZES was associated with an increased risk of death and TLR in a large cohort of consecutive patients.

Objectives: To compare clinical outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with zotarolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents in the SORT OUT III trial., Background: Currently, only limited data allow direct comparison of clinical outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with a second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) eluting zotarolimus vs. a first-generation DES eluting sirolimus., Methods: Patients with acute coronary syndrome (n=1052) were randomized to treatment with zotarolimus-eluting (n=506) or sirolimus-eluting (n=546) stents and followed for 18 months. The primary composite endpoint, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), was defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularization., Results: Zotarolimus-eluting stent treatment compared to sirolimus-eluting stent treatment was associated with increased rates of MACE (8·7% vs. 5·0%; hazard ratio (HR), 1·78; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1·10-2·88; P=0·02) and TVR (6·8% vs. 3·9%; HR, 1·77; 95% CI, 1·03-3·04; P=0·04), while all-cause death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction and definite stent thrombosis did not differ significantly. In the same trial, stable angina pectoris patients (n=1206) were randomized to zotarolimus-eluting (n=614) and sirolimus-eluting (n=592) stents with similar results., Conclusions: With and without acute coronary syndromes, patients treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent had better clinical outcomes than those treated with the zotarolimus-eluting stent., (© 2012 The Authors. European Journal of Clinical Investigation © 2012 Stichting European Society for Clinical Investigation Journal Foundation.)

Objectives: There are limited head-to-head randomized data on patient-related versus stent-related outcomes for everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES)., Background: In the SORT OUT IV (Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials With Clinical Outcome IV) trial, comparing the EES with the SES in patients with coronary artery disease, the EES was noninferior to the SES at 9 months., Methods: The primary endpoint was a composite: cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), definite stent thrombosis, or target vessel revascularization. Safety and efficacy outcomes at 2 years were further assessed with specific focus on patient-related composite (all death, all MI, or any revascularization) and stent-related composite outcomes (cardiac death, target vessel MI, or symptom-driven target lesion revascularization). A total of 1,390 patients were assigned to receive the EES, and 1,384 patients were assigned to receive the SES., Results: At 2 years, the composite primary endpoint occurred in 8.3% in the EES group and in 8.7% in the SES group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73 to 1.22). The patient-related outcome: 15.0% in the EES group versus 15.6% in the SES group, (HR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.15), and the stent-related outcome: 5.2% in the EES group versus 5.3% in the SES group (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.35) did not differ between groups. Rate of definite stent thrombosis was lower in the EES group (0.2% vs. 0.9%, (HR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.80)., Conclusions: At 2-year follow-up, the EES was found to be noninferior to the SES with regard to both patient-related and stent-related clinical outcomes., (Copyright © 2012 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to examine the 3-year clinical outcomes in patients treated with the Endeavor (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, California) zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) or the Cypher (Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Warren, New Jersey) sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in routine clinical practice., Background: The long-term clinical outcome in patients treated with ZES in comparison with SES is unclear., Methods: The authors randomized 2,332 patients to ZES (n = 1,162) or SES (n = 1,170) implantation. Endpoints included major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization; the individual endpoints of MACE; and definite stent thrombosis., Results: At 3-year follow-up, the MACE rate was higher in patients treated with ZES than in patients treated with SES (148 [12.9%] vs. 116 [10.1%]; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04 to 1.69; p = 0.022). Target vessel revascularization was more frequent in the ZES group compared with the SES group (103 [9.1%] vs. 76 [6.7%]; HR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.89; p = 0.025), whereas the occurrence of myocardial infarction (3.8% vs. 3.3%) and cardiac death (2.8% vs. 2.8%) did not differ significantly. Although the rate of definite stent thrombosis was similar at 3-year follow-up (1.1% vs. 1.4%), very late (12 to 36 months) definite stent thrombosis occurred in 0 (0%) patients in the ZES group versus 12 (1.1%) patients in the SES group (p = 0.0005)., Conclusions: Although the 3-year MACE rate is higher in patients treated with ZES versus SES, our data highlight a late safety problem concerning definite stent thrombosis with the use of SES. This finding underscores the importance of long-term follow-up in head-to-head comparisons of drug-eluting stents. (Randomized Clinical Comparison of the Endeavor and the Cypher Coronary Stents in Non-selected Angina Pectoris Patients [SORT OUT III]; NCT00660478)., (Copyright © 2012 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Data on clinical outcomes among patients treated with the zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor™ stent versus the sirolimus-eluting Cypher™ stent favor the sirolimus-eluting stent. However, a separate comparison of clinical outcome among patients treated for multiple lesions with these stents is lacking. We performed this comparison within the SORT OUT III trial data set., Methods: Among 2332 patients randomized in SORT OUT III, 695 were treated for multiple lesions with zotarolimus-eluting (n = 350) or sirolimus-eluting (n = 345) stents and followed for 18 months. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE); composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization (TVR); was the primary endpoint., Results: Zotarolimus-eluting compared to sirolimus-eluting stent treatment was associated with increased MACE rate (13.2% vs. 2.6%; hazard ratio 5.29 with 95% confidence interval: 2.59-10.8). All secondary endpoints; all cause death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, TVR, target lesion revascularization, in-stent restenosis, and definite stent thrombosis; were observed more frequently among zotarolimus-eluting stent treated patients. For all endpoints, hazard ratios were 1.6 to 4.6 times higher than in the overall results of the SORT OUT III trial., Conclusions: We observed better clinical outcomes among patients treated for multiple lesions with the sirolimus-eluting stent compared to those treated with the zotarolimus-eluting stent.

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 (SORT OUT IV) trial was a randomized multicenter, single-blind, all-comer, 2-arm, noninferiority 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 noninferiority criterion was a risk difference of 0.015. Intention-to-treat analyses were done at 9- and 18-month follow-ups. A total of 1390 patients were assigned to receive the everolimus-eluting stent and 1384 patients to the sirolimus-eluting stent. At the 9-month follow-up, 68 patients (4.9%) treated with the everolimus-eluting stent compared with 72 patients (5.2%) treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent experienced the primary end point (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-1.31; P for noninferiority=0.01). At the 18-month follow-up, this differential remained: 99 patients (7.2%) treated with the everolimus-eluting stent versus 105 (7.6%) treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.23). At the 9-month follow-up, the rate of definite stent thrombosis was higher in the sirolimus-eluting group (2 patients [0.1%] versus 9 patients [0.7%]; hazard ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.02). At the 18-month follow-up, this difference was sustained (3 patients [0.2%] versus 12 patients [0.9%]; hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.88)., Conclusion: The everolimus-eluting stent was found to be noninferior to the sirolimus-eluting stent., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00552877.

Diabetes is associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiac events after percutaneous coronary intervention. We compared clinical outcomes in patients with and without diabetes mellitus treated with the second-generation Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) or the first-generation Cypher Select+ sirolimus-eluting stent (SES). We randomized 2,332 patients to treatment with ZESs (n = 1,162, n = 169 diabetics) or SESs (n = 1,170, n = 168 diabetics) and followed them for 18 months. Randomization was stratified by presence/absence of diabetes. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Secondary end points included these individual end points plus all-cause mortality and target lesion revascularization. In diabetic patients, use of ZES compared to SES was associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiac events (18.3% vs 4.8%, hazard ratio 4.05, 95% confidence interval 1.86 to 8.82), myocardial infarction (4.7% vs 0.6%, hazard ratio 8.09, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 64.7), target vessel revascularization (14.2% vs 3.0%, hazard ratio 4.99, 95% confidence interval 1.90 to 13.1), and target lesion revascularization (12.4% vs 1.2%, hazard ratio 11.0, 95% confidence interval 2.59 to 47.1). In patients without diabetes differences in absolute risk decrease were smaller but similarly favored SES. In conclusion, implantation of ZESs compared to SESs is associated with a considerable increased risk of adverse events in patients with diabetes at 18-month follow-up., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Patients with diabetes mellitus have worse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention than patients without diabetes mellitus. We compared the risk of stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, death, and target lesion revascularization in diabetic and nondiabetic patients after implantation of drug-eluting stents or bare metal stents. In the Western Denmark Heart Registry, 12,347 consecutive patients (1,575 with and 10,772 without diabetes) were identified and followed up for 2 years. The 2-year risk of definite stent thrombosis was 0.52% in patients with diabetes mellitus and 0.71% in nondiabetic patients (adjusted relative risk [RR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41 to 1.34, p = 0.321). The 2-year risk of myocardial infarction was greater in the diabetic patients (6.9%) than in the nondiabetic patients (3.6%; adjusted RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.43; p <0.001). The all-cause 2-year mortality rate was almost twice as great for the diabetic patients compared to the nondiabetic patients (12.4% vs 6.7%; adjusted RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.63 to 2.23; p <0.001). The 2-year risk of target lesion revascularization was 8.5% in the diabetic patients and 6.8% in the nondiabetic patients (adjusted RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.49; p <0.001). In conclusion, 2 years after drug-eluting stent or bare metal stent implantation, diabetic patients had a greater risk than nondiabetic patients of myocardial infarction and death. Drug-eluting stent treatment reduced the risk of target lesion revascularization compared to bare metal stent treatment, regardless of diabetes status., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Stent thrombosis is a serious complication of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We examined the incidence of stent thrombosis and other outcomes in patients treated with PCI and paclitaxeleluting stents (PES), sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) or bare-metal stents (BMS)., Methods and Results: All patients who underwent PES, SES or BMS implantation from January 2002 to June 2005 were identified in the population-based Western Denmark Heart Registry. All were followed for 36 months. Cox regression analysis was used to estimate relative risk (RR), controlling for covariates. A total of 12,374 patients were treated with stents: 1,298 with PES, 2,202 with SES and 8,847 with BMS. The three-year incidence of definite stent thrombosis was similar in the DES group (1.1%) and in the BMS group (0.7%) (adjusted relative risk [RR]: 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85-1.81). Very late definite stent thrombosis occurred more frequently in DES-treated patients (adjusted RR: 2.89, 95% CI: 1.48- 5.65). The three-year mortality rate did not differ significantly between the two groups. Target lesion revascularisation (TLR) was lower in DES-treated patients than in BMS-treated patients (adjusted RR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.63-0.81)., Conclusions: An increased risk of very late definite stent thrombosis was observed in DES-treated patients compared with BMS-treated patients, but a similar mortality was detected. TLR continued to be lower among patients receiving DES.

Background: In low-risk patients, the zotarolimus-eluting stent has been shown to reduce rates of restenosis without increasing the risk of stent thrombosis. We compared the efficacy and safety of the zotarolimus-eluting stent versus the sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease who were receiving routine clinical care with no direct follow-up., Methods: We did a single-blind, all-comer superiority trial in adult patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes, and at least one target lesion. Patients were treated at one of five percutaneous coronary intervention centres between January, 2006, and August, 2007. Computer-generated block randomisation and a telephone allocation service were used to randomly assign patients to receive the zotarolimus-eluting or the sirolimus-eluting stent. Data for follow-up were obtained from national Danish administrative and health-care registries. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiac events within 9 months: cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation. Intention-to-treat analyses were done at 9-month and 18-month follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00660478., Findings: 1162 patients (1619 lesions) were assigned to receive the zotarolimus-eluting stent, and 1170 patients (1611 lesions) to receive the sirolimus-eluting stent. 67 patients (72 lesions) had stent failure, and six patients were lost to follow-up. All randomly assigned patients were included in analyses at 9-month follow-up; 2200 patients (94%) had completed 18-month follow-up by the time of our assessment. At 9 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in a higher proportion of patients treated with the zotarolimus-eluting stent than in those treated with the sirolimus-eluting stent (72 [6%] vs 34 [3%]; HR 2.15, 95% CI 1.43-3.23; p=0.0002). At 18-month follow-up, this difference was sustained (113 [10%] vs 53 [5%]; 2.19, 1.58-3.04; p<0.0001). For patients receiving the zotarolimus-eluting stent and those receiving the sirolimus-eluting stent, all cause-mortality was similar at 9-month follow-up (25 [2%] vs 18 [2%]; 1.40, 0.76-2.56; p=0.28), but was significantly different at 18-month follow-up (51 [4%] vs 32 [3%]; 1.61, 1.03-2.50; p=0.035)., Interpretation: The sirolimus-eluting stent is superior to the zotarolimus-eluting stent for patients receiving routine clinical care., Funding: Cordis and Medtronic., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)