Long-term comparison of everolimus- and sirolimus-eluting stents in patients with acute coronary syndromes.

Objectives: The goal of this study was to compare the long-term clinical outcome between everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS).
Background: EES have not been directly compared with SES in ACS patients to date.
Methods: Between 2004 and 2009, 1,746 consecutive ACS patients (ST-segment elevation ACS [STE-ACS]: 33.5%; non-ST-segment elevation ACS [NSTE-ACS]: 66.5%) were treated with EES (n=903) or SES (n=843). Using propensity score matching, clinical outcome was compared among 705 matched pairs of ACS patients treated with EES and SES.
Results: Through 3 years, the primary endpoint-the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularization (TVR)-occurred in 13.8% of EES- and 17.7% of SES-treated ACS patients (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54 to 0.95, p=0.02). The difference in favor of EES was driven by a lower risk of TVR (5.7% vs. 8.8%, HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.98, p=0.04) and a trend toward a lower risk of MI (2.1% vs. 3.3%, HR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.29 to 1.12, p=0.10). The risk of death (7.2% vs. 8.8%, HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.10, p=0.14) showed no difference between EES and SES. The treatment effect in favor of EES for the primary endpoint was similar for patients with STE-ACS (16.4% vs. 18.5%, HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.27) and NSTE-ACS (12.4% vs. 17.3%; HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.96; pfor interaction=0.56) and across major subgroups. Definite (0.4% vs. 1.8%, p=0.03), and definite or probable stent thrombosis (3.4% vs. 6.1%, p=0.02) were less frequent among EES- than SES-treated ACS patients.
Conclusions: Among patients with ACS, the unrestricted use of EES is associated with improved clinical outcome compared with SES during long-term follow-up to 3 years. Notably, the risk of stent thrombosis was lower among EES-treated ACS patients.
(Copyright © 2012 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)