Search

Background: Drug-eluting stents with biodegradable polymers have been designed to improve safety and efficacy. However, drug-eluting stents with biodegradable polymers may not be a class effect, as stent strut thickness, polymer coating, and drug resorption differ between these groups of stents. Twelve months results of Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials With Clinical Outcome VII showed that ultrathin-strut sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent was noninferior to the biolimus-eluting Nobori stent. The sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent was associated with a reduced risk of definite stent thrombosis., Methods: The Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials With Clinical Outcome VII trial is a prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent and biolimus-eluting Nobori stent in all-comers patients. The endpoint target lesion failure was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (not related to other than index lesion) and target lesion revascularization., Results: A total of 1261 patients were randomized to treatment with sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent and 1264 patients to biolimus-eluting Nobori stent and followed for 3 years. At 3-year the target lesion failure was comparable for sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent (9.0%) and the biolimus-eluting Nobori stent (9.1%), (rate ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.29). Cardiac death (sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent 3.0% vs. biolimus-eluting Nobori stent 2.6% [rate ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.86]), target lesion revascularization (sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent 5.2% vs. biolimus-eluting Nobori stent 5.9% [rate ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.25]), myocardial infarction (sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent 4.7% vs. biolimus-eluting Nobori stent 4.5% [rate ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.50]), and definite stent thrombosis (sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent 1.0% vs. biolimus-eluting Nobori stent 1.7% [rate ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-1.18]) did not differ significantly between the two groups., Conclusion: At 3-year follow-up, target lesion failure did not differ among ultrathin-strut sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent and biolimus-eluting Nobori stent with biodegradable polymers.

Background: In patients with increased bleeding risk, the biolimus A9-coated BioFreedom stent, a stainless steel drug-coated stent free from polymer, has shown superiority compared with a bare-metal stent. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the BioFreedom stent is noninferior to a modern ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer cobalt-chromium sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent in an all-comers patient population treated with percutaneous coronary intervention., Methods: The SORT OUT IX trial (Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials With Clinical Outcome IX), was a large-scale, registry-based, randomized, multicenter, single-blind, 2-arm, noninferiority trial. The primary end point, major adverse cardiovascular events, was defined as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction not related to any segment other than the target lesion, or target lesion revascularization within 1 year, analyzed by intention-to-treat. The trial was powered to assess noninferiority for major adverse cardiovascular events of the BioFreedom stent compared with the Orsiro stent with a predetermined noninferiority margin of 0.021., Results: Between December 14, 2015 and April 21, 2017, 3151 patients were assigned to treatment with the BioFreedom stent (1572 patients, 1966 lesions) or to the Orsiro stent (1579 patients, 1985 lesions). Five patients were lost to follow-up because of emigration (99.9% follow-up rate). Mean age was 66.3±10.9, diabetes mellitus was seen in 19.3% of patients, and 53% of the patients had acute coronary syndromes. At 1 year, intention-to-treat analysis showed that 79 (5.0%) patients, who were assigned the BioFreedom stent, and 59 (3.7%), who were assigned the Orsiro stent, met the primary end point (absolute risk difference 1.29% [upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 2.50%]; P noni nferiority =0.14). Significantly more patients in the BioFreedom stent group had target lesion revascularization than those in the Orsiro stent group (55 [3.5%] vs 20 [1.3%], rate ratio 2.77 [95% CI, 1.66-4.62]; P <0.0001)., Conclusions: The biolimus A9-coated BioFreedom polymer-free stent did not meet criteria for noninferiority for major adverse cardiovascular events at 12 months when compared with the ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent in an all-comers population Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02623140.

Background: In patients with increased bleeding risk during dual antiplatelet therapy, the biolimus A9-coated BioFreedom, a stainless steel drug-coated stent devoid of polymer, has shown superiority compared to a bare-metal stent. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the polymer-free biolimus A9-coated BioFreedom is noninferior to a modern thin-strut biodegradable polymer cobalt-chromium sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent in an all-comers patient population treated with percutaneous coronary intervention., Methods: The multicenter SORT OUT IX trial (NCT02623140) randomly assigned all-comers patients to treatment with the BioFreedom drug-coated stent or the biodegradable polymer Orsiro stent in 4 Danish University Hospitals. 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 based on Danish registries will be used and continue through 5 years. Assuming an event rate of 4.2% in each stent group, 1,563 patients in each treatment arm will provide 90% power to detect noninferiority of the drug-coated BioFreedom stent with a noninferiority margin of 2.1%., Results: A total of 3,150 patients have been randomized and enrolled in the study., Conclusions: The SORT OUT IX trial will determine whether the drug-coated BioFreedom stent is noninferior to a modern biodegradable polymer Orsiro stent., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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)., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Aims: FANTOM II is a prospective multicentre trial assessing the safety and efficacy of the Fantom sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable coronary scaffold (BRS). The present substudy focuses on the six- and nine-month IVUS findings., Methods and Results: A total of 240 patients with de novo coronary artery lesions presenting with stable or unstable disease were included in two sequential cohorts (cohort A [n=117] and cohort B [n=123]) in which angiographic follow-up was performed at either six or nine months, respectively. Matched IVUS data were available for 35 paired cases in cohort A and 26 paired cases in cohort B. At six months, mean and minimum scaffold area (SA) decreased from 6.09±1.08 mm2 to 5.88±1.07 mm2, p=0.009, and 5.27±0.99 mm2 to 5.05±0.99 mm2, p=0.01, respectively. At nine months, no significant change in mean scaffold and minimum scaffold area was observed (6.46±1.11 mm2 to 6.38±0.96 mm2; p=0.35, and 5.45±1.00 mm2 to 5.36±0.86 mm2; p=0.32, respectively). Neointimal hyperplasia area was low at both six (0.11±0.12 mm2) and nine months (0.20±0.21 mm2), as was in-scaffold obstruction volume (1.94±2.25% at six months, and 3.40±4.11% at nine months)., Conclusions: The use of the Fantom BRS in stable coronary artery disease was associated with low rates of neointimal hyperplasia volume and in-scaffold volume obstruction at both six and nine months.

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.

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: Long-term safety and efficacy for everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus those of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) are unknown., Objectives: This study compared 5-year outcomes for EES with those for SES from the SORT OUT IV (Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials with Clinical Outcome) trial., Methods: Five-year follow-up was completed for 2,771 patients (99.9%). Primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and definite stent thrombosis., Results: At 5-years, MACE occurred in 14.0% and 17.4% in the EES and SES groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66 to 0.97; p = 0.02). The MACE rate did not differ significantly within the first year (HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.19; p = 0.79), but from years 1 through 5, the MACE rate was lower with EES (HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.90; p = 0.006; p interaction = 0.12). Definite stent thrombosis was lower with EES (0.4%) than with SES (2.0%; HR: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.46), with a lower risk of very late definite stent thrombosis in the EES group (0.2% vs. 1.4%, respectively; HR: 0.16, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.53). When censoring the patients at the time of stent thrombosis, we found no significant differences between the 2 stent groups for MACE rates (HR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.73 to 1.08; p = 0.23), target lesion revascularization (HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.27; p = 0.55), and MI (HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.36; p = 0.72)., Conclusions: At 5-year follow-up, MACE rate was significantly lower with EES- than with SES-treated patients, due largely due to a lower risk of very late definite stent thrombosis. (Randomized Clinical Comparison of the Xience V and the Cypher Coronary Stents in Non-selected Patients With Coronary Heart Disease [SORT OUT IV]; NCT00552877)., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Third-generation coronary drug-eluting stents (DES) with biodegradable polymers have been designed to improve safety and efficacy. We designed a large scale registry-based randomized clinical trial to compare 2 third-generation DES: a thin strut, cobalt-chromium DES with silicon carbide-coating releasing sirolimus from a biodegradable polymer (O-SES, Orsiro; Biotronik, Bülach, Switzerland) with the stainless steel biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting Nobori stents (N-BES, Nobori; Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) in an all-comer patient population., Design: The multicenter SORT OUT VII trial (NCT01879358) randomly assigned 2,530 patients to treatment with biodegradable polymer O-SES or biodegradable polymer N-BES at 3 sites in Western Denmark. Patients were eligible, if they were ≥18 years old; had chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes; and ≥1 coronary lesion with >50% diameter stenosis, requiring treatment with a DES. 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 based on Danish registries will be used. An event rate of 6.5% is assumed in each stent group. With a sample size of 1,157 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 O-SES compared with the N-BES with a predetermined noninferiority margin of 3.0%., Conclusion: The SORT OUT VII trial will determine whether the biodegradable polymers O-SES is noninferior to the N-BES with respect to driven event., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.)

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.)

Objective: Millions of patients were treated with the sirolimus-eluting Cypher™ and the paclitaxel-eluting Taxus™ coronary stents with potential late-occurring increase in event rates. Therefore, the long-term outcome follow-up is of major clinical interest., Design: In total, 2.098 unselected patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-STEMI, stable or unstable angina pectoris were randomized to receive Cypher™ (n = 1.065) or Taxus™ (n = 1.033) stents and were followed for 5 years., Results: The primary end-point; the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization (major adverse cardiac event, MACE), occurred in 467 patients (22.3%); Cypher™ n = 222 (20.8%), Taxus™ n = 245 (23.7%), ns. Definite and probable stent thrombosis occurred in 107 patients (5.1%); Cypher™ n = 51 (4.8%), Taxus™ n = 56 (5.4%), ns. No statistically significant differences were found in the elements of the primary end-point or in other secondary end-points between the two stent groups. After one year, the annual rates of stent thrombosis and MACE remained constant., Conclusions: During 5-year follow-up, the Cypher™ and the Taxus™ coronary stents had similar clinical outcome with no signs of increasing rates of adverse events over time.

Objective: To evaluate the effects of the everolimus-eluting Xience™/Promus™ stent (EES) and the sirolimus-eluting Cypher™ stent (SES) on intimal hyperplasia (IH) in diabetic patients., Background: Patients with diabetes mellitus have increased risk of in-stent restenosis after coronary stent implantation due to intimal hyperplasia (IH)., Methods: In a sub study of the Randomized Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting and Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients Treated with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (SORT OUT IV trial), serial intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) 10-month follow-up data were available in 88 patients, including 48 EES and 40 SES treated patients. IVUS endpoints included IH volume, in-stent % volume obstruction and changes in external elastic membrane (EEM) volume., Results: Compared with the SES group, IH volume was increased in the EES group [median (interquartile range): 2.8 mm(3) (0.0-12.6) vs. 0.0 mm(3) (0.0-1.1), P = 0.001]. In-stent % volume obstruction was increased in EES compared to SES [median (interquartile range): 1.6% (0.0-8.2) vs. 0.0% (0.0-1.0), P = 0.001]. Peri-stent external elastic membrane (EEM) volume: (post procedure vs. follow-up EES [300 mm(3) (219-491) vs. 307 mm(3) (223-482), P = 0.73] and SES [316 mm(3) (235-399) vs. 323 mm(3) (246-404), P = 0.05]) and peri-stent plaque volume: EES [163 mm(3) (103-273) vs. 184 mm(3) (115-291), P = 0.18] and SES [186 mm(3) (139-248) vs. 175 mm(3) (153-243), P = 0.26]) were unchanged in both groups. In the proximal reference segment a significant increase in plaque area was seen in the EES group only, without vascular remodeling., Conclusion: In diabetic patients, EES stent implantation was associated with increased IH volume obstruction without involvement of vascular remodeling., (Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

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: 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.

Aims: Patients with diabetes mellitus have increased risk of in-stent restenosis after coronary stent implantation due to neointimal hyperplasia (NIH). The aim of this study was to use quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and volumetric intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) to evaluate the effects of the sirolimus-eluting Cypher® stent (SES) and the zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor® stent (ZES) on angiographic late lumen loss and intima hyperplasia in diabetic patients., Methods and Results: In the DiabeDES III trial, 127 patients were randomised to SES or ZES stent implantation. Angiographic 10-month follow-up data were available in 105 patients, including 48 SES and 57 ZES treated patients. Angiographic endpoints were in-stent late lumen loss and minimal lumen diameter. IVUS endpoints included NIH volume and in-stent percent volume obstruction. Baseline clinical characteristics and lesion parameters were similar in the two groups. At 10-month follow-up, angiographic in-stent late lumen loss (0.14±0.37 mm vs. 0.74±0.45 mm, p<0.001) was reduced and minimum lumen diameter was higher (2.36±0.53 mm vs. 1.96±0.65, p<0.001) in the SES group as compared to the ZES group. As compared to the ZES group, NIH volume was significantly reduced in the SES group (median [interquartile range]: 0.0 mm3 [0.0 to 1.2] vs. 16.5 mm3 [6.2 to 31.1], p<0.001). In-stent% volume obstruction was significantly reduced in SES as compared to ZES (median [interquartile range]: 0.0% [0.0-0.7] vs. 13.0% [6.7-20.8], p<0.001)., Conclusions: In diabetic patients, the SES reduced angiographic late lumen loss and inhibited NIH more effectively than ZES.

We implanted a Cypher Select™ coronary stent and two months later a Nevo™ sirolimus-eluting coronary stent in another vessel. At a prescheduled angiographic follow-up, coronary aneurysms were seen in the two stented segments, 6 and 8 months after stent implantation, respectively. Six months later, the aneurysm had healed in the Nevo, but was still present in the Cypher stented segment. We hypothesize that aneurysm formation was induced by sirolimus and the polymer of the implanted stents, and that subsequent healing was possible in the Nevo stent after degradation of the polymer.

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.)

Background: The sirolimus-eluting stent has demonstrated the least amount of late lumen loss among previously released drug-eluting stents, but its safety and efficacy has not been compared head-to-head with the everolimus-eluting stent., Method: The Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials with Clinical Outcome (SORT OUT) IV trial was designed as a prospective, multi-center, open-label, all-comer, two-arm, randomized, non-inferiority study comparing the everolimus-eluting stent with the sirolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of atherosclerotic coronary artery lesions. Based on a non-inferiority design, power calculations estimated a needed enrolment of 2,678 patients. The primary endpoint is a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis or target vessel revascularization after 9 months. Data on clinical events and mortality for all randomized patients will be obtained from national databases at 9 months. No clinical follow-up examination is scheduled., Conclusion: The SORT OUT IV trial will directly compare clinically relevant differences in efficacy and safety in two drug-eluting stents: a first-generation sirolimus-eluting stent versus a second-generation everolimus-eluting stent. The study makes use of clinical endpoints routinely collected in computerized healthcare registries, allowing complete follow-up of a large, well-defined population without scheduled angiographic examinations., (Copyright 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Patients with diabetes have an increased risk of in-stent restenosis after coronary stent implantation. Serial intravascular ultrasound was used to study chronic arterial responses and edge effects after implantation of Cypher (Cordis, Johnson & Johnson, Miami Lakes, Florida) or Taxus (Boston Scientific, Maple Grove, Minnesota) stents in diabetic patients. Seventy-four diabetic patients were randomly assigned to Cypher or Taxus stent implantation. Intravascular ultrasound of 5-mm long segments immediately proximal and distal to the stent was performed after the procedure and at the 8-month follow-up. The increase in peri-stent external elastic membrane (EEM) volume was more pronounced in the Taxus group (292.4 +/- 132.6 to 309.5 +/- 146.8 mm(3)) than in the Cypher group (274.4 +/- 137.2 to 275.4 +/- 140.1 mm(3); p = 0.005). Peri-stent plaque volume increased in the Taxus group (152.5 +/- 73.7 to 166.1 +/- 85.1 mm(3)), but was unchanged in the Cypher group (153.5 +/- 75.5 to 151.5 +/- 75.8 mm(3); p = 0.002). In proximal and distal reference segments, mean lumen area decreased within the entire 5-mm edge segment (proximal and distal) because of plaque progression (distal, 5.5 +/- 3.6 to 5.8 +/- 3.7 mm(2); p = 0.097; proximal, 8.1 +/- 2.7 to 8.7 +/- 2.9 mm(2); p = 0.006) without remodeling (change in EEM) in the Taxus group. Conversely, there were no significant changes in reference-segment EEM or plaque areas in the Cypher group. In conclusion, in diabetic patients, Taxus stent implantation was associated with increased (1) peri-stent EEM volume and peri-stent plaque, and (2) stent edge plaque progression accompanied by lumen reduction without remodeling. These findings were not seen in Cypher stents.

Objectives: This registry study assessed the safety and efficacy of the 2 types of drug-eluting stents (DES), sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES), compared with bare-metal stents (BMS)., Background: Drug-eluting stents may increase the risk of stent thrombosis (ST), myocardial infarction (MI), and death., Methods: A total of 12,395 consecutive patients with coronary intervention and stent implantation recorded in the Western Denmark Heart Registry from January 2002 through June 2005 were followed up for 2 years. Data on death and MI were ascertained from national medical databases. We used Cox regression analysis to control for confounding., Results: The 2-year incidence of definite ST was 0.64% in BMS patients, 0.79% in DES patients (adjusted relative risk [RR]: 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72 to 1.65), 0.50% in SES patients (adjusted RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.35 to 1.15), and 1.30% in PES patients (adjusted RR: 1.82, 95% CI: 1.13 to 2.94). The incidence of MI was 3.8% in BMS-treated patients, 4.5% in DES-treated patients (adjusted RR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.51), 4.1% in SES-treated patients (adjusted RR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.47), and 5.3% in PES-treated patients (adjusted RR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.81). Whereas overall 2-year adjusted mortality was similar in the BMS and the 2 DES stent groups, 12- to 24-month mortality was higher in patients treated with PES (RR 1.46, 95% CI: 1.02 to 2.09). Target lesion revascularization was reduced in both DES groups., Conclusions: During 2 years of follow-up, patients treated with PES had an increased risk of ST and MI compared with those treated with BMS and SES. Mortality after 12 months was also increased in PES patients.

The aim of the present study was to evaluate angiographic late luminal loss after the implantation of sirolimus-eluting Cypher stents and paclitaxel-eluting Taxus stents in patients with diabetes. The study was a Danish multicenter, open-label, randomized trial. One hundred fifty-three patients with diabetes with coronary artery disease were randomized to Cypher (n = 76) or Taxus (n = 77) stent implantation. All patients were followed for 8 months. The primary end point was 8-month angiographic in-stent late luminal loss. This primary end point was reduced in the Cypher group compared with the Taxus group (0.23 +/- 0.54 vs 0.44 +/- 0.52 mm, p = 0.025). Angiographic in-segment restenosis at 8-month follow-up, a secondary end point, was present in 16 patients (Cypher, n = 6; Taxus, n = 10; p = 0.24). Target lesion revascularization was performed in 5 patients (6.5%) and 9 patients (11.8%) in the Cypher and Taxus groups, respectively (p = 0.25). Definite stent thrombosis was observed in 2 patients (in the Taxus group), no patients had probable stent thrombosis, and 1 patient in each group had possible stent thrombosis. Major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, or target lesion revascularization) were observed in 17 patients (Cypher, n = 6; Taxus, n = 11; p = 0.19). In conclusion, angiographic in-stent late luminal loss is significantly reduced in patients with diabetes by use of the sirolimus-eluting Cypher stent compared with the paclitaxel-eluting Taxus stent.

Objectives: This study sought to compare the long-term effects of drug-eluting stent (DES) compared with bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Background: The randomized DEDICATION (Drug Elution and Distal Protection in Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial evaluated the outcome after DES compared with BMS implantation in patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods: Patients with a high-grade stenosis/occlusion of a native coronary artery presenting with symptoms <12 h and ST-segment elevation were enrolled after giving informed consent. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a DES or a BMS in the infarct-related lesion. Patients were followed for at least 5 years, and clinical endpoints were evaluated from population registries and hospital charts. The main endpoint was the occurrence of the first major adverse cardiac event (MACE), defined as cardiac death, nonfatal recurrent myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Results: Complete clinical status was available in 623 patients (99.5%) at 5 years follow-up. The combined MACE rate was insignificantly lower in the DES group (16.9% vs. 23%), mainly driven by a lower need of repeat revascularization (p = 0.07). Whereas the number of deaths from all causes tended to be higher in the DES group (16.3% vs. 12.1%, p = 0.17), cardiac mortality was significantly higher (7.7% vs. 3.2%, p = 0.02). The 5-year stent thrombosis rates were generally low and similar between the DES and the BMS groups. No cardiac deaths occurring within 1 month could be clearly ascribed to stent thrombosis, whereas stent thrombosis was involved in 78% of later-occurring deaths. Conclusions: The 5-year MACE rate was insignificantly different, but the cardiac mortality was higher after DES versus BMS implantation in patients with STEMI. Stent thrombosis was the main cause of late cardiac deaths. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]