Everolimus- versus zotarolimus-eluting stent following percutaneous coronary chronic total occlusion intervention.

Background Although studies have demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety profiles of everolimus- and zotarolimus-eluting stents (EES and ZES, respectively) for a broad spectrum of coronary artery diseases, there is paucity of data concerning their safety and efficacy for coronary chronic total occlusions (CTOs). This study compared the clinical performance of EES and ZES following successful percutaneous coronary intervention for CTOs. Methods The cohort included 539 consecutive CTO patients who underwent successful PCI using EES (n = 313) and ZES (n = 226) between September 2006 and August 2014. The primary outcome was defined as the composite of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. Results During a median follow-up of 3.3 years, in both groups, the primary outcome occurred in 12.2% of patients. After multivariable adjustment, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in the risk of primary outcome [hazard ratio (HR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59–1.79, P = 0.930 for ZES compared with EES]. Similarly, there were no significant differences in the risk of death (adjusted HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.43–2.15, P = 925), death or myocardial infarction (adjusted HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.46–1.88, P = 0.829), and target vessel failure (adjusted HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.51–1.82, P = 0.902). The incidence of definite/probable stent thrombosis was relatively low [0% (ZES) vs. 1.0% (EES), P = 0.19]. Conclusion No significant differences were observed between EES and ZES in terms of clinical outcomes for coronary CTOs at 3.3 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]