Search

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of the Xience V (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) everolimus-eluting stent (EES) with the Taxus Liberté (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) at 2-year follow-up.BackgroundCOMPARE (Comparison of the everolimus eluting XIENCE-V stent with the paclitaxel eluting TAXUS LIBERTÉ stent in all-comers: a randomized open label trial) demonstrated a superior clinical outcome of EES over PES at 1 year in all comers. Whether this superiority is maintained after discontinuation, at 12 months, of dual antiplatelet therapy is unclear.MethodsPatients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with limited exclusion criteria were randomly allocated to EES or PES. The 2-year pre-specified endpoints are composites of safety and efficacy and stent thrombosis.ResultsFollow-up was completed in 1,795 of 1,800 patients (99.7%). The groups had similar baseline characteristics. At 2 years, significantly fewer EES patients took dual antiplatelet therapy (11.4% vs. 15.4%, p = 0.02). The primary composite of all death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization occurred in 9.0% of EES patients and 13.7% of PES patients (relative risk [RR]: 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.50 to 0.86) driven by a lower rate of myocardial infarction (3.9% vs. 7.5%; RR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.77) and target vessel revascularization (3.2% vs. 8.0%; RR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.62), in parallel with a lower rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis (0.9% vs. 3.9%; RR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.49). Differences significantly increased between 1- and 2-year follow-up for the primary composite endpoint (p = 0.04), target vessel revascularization (p = 0.02), and definite or probable stent thrombosis (p = 0.02).ConclusionsThe substantial clinical benefit of the EES over the PES with regard to measures of both safety and efficacy is maintained at 2 years in real-life practice with an increasing benefit in terms of safety and efficacy between 1 year and 2 years. Comparison of the everolimus eluting XIENCE-V stent with the paclitaxel eluting TAXUS LIBERTÉ stent in all-comers: a randomized open label trial: The COMPARE Trial [COMPARE 1]; NCT01016041)

ObjectivesThis study sought to report the 5-year outcomes of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in an all-comers population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).BackgroundThe medium-term 1 and 2-year results of the prospective randomized COMPARE trial (A Trial of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice) showed superior clinical outcomes with EES compared with PES in an all-comers PCI population. Whether this benefit is sustained over longer-term follow-up is unknown. Furthermore, systematic long-term follow-up data on these metallic drug eluting stents with durable polymers are scarce.MethodsWe randomly assigned 1,800 patients undergoing PCI to EES or PES. The pre-specified composite primary endpoint was death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR).ResultsFollow-up at 5 years was completed in 1,791 (99.5%) patients. Treatment with EES compared with PES led to a relative risk reduction of the primary endpoint by 27% (18.4% vs. 25.1%, p = 0.0005), driven by lower rates of MI (7.0% vs. 11.5%, p = 0.001) and TVR (7.4% vs. 11.4%, p = 0.003), but not with mortality (9.0% vs. 10.3%, relative risk 0.88, p = 0.36). Moreover, patients treated with EES compared with PES had lower rates of definite/probable stent thrombosis at 5 years (3.1% vs. 5.9%, p = 0.005). The hazard curves for TVR, MI, and stent thrombosis diverge over the first 3 years and, subsequently, progress in parallel.ConclusionsThe early- and medium-term superiority of EES over PES measured both by safety and efficacy endpoints is sustained at 5 years in this all-comer population. (A Trial of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice [COMPARE]; NCT01016041)