CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

推荐文献

科研文章

荐读文献

Coronary Angiography after Cardiac Arrest without ST-Segment Elevation The Year in Cardiovascular Medicine 2020: Coronary Intervention Effects of Aspirin for Primary Prevention in Persons with Diabetes Mellitus Cholesterol-Lowering Agents Defining High Bleeding Risk in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Consensus Document From the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk Association of Coronary Anatomical Complexity With Clinical Outcomes After Percutaneous or Surgical Revascularization in the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment Reporting and Tracking Program Select Drug-Drug Interactions With Direct Oral Anticoagulants Randomized Comparison of Everolimus- and Zotarolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents With Biolimus-Eluting Stents in All-Comer Patients Antiinflammatory Therapy with Canakinumab for Atherosclerotic Disease Classification of Deaths in Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials Known Unknowns and Unknown Unknowns

Clinical TrialMarch 2020 Vol 13, Issue 3

JOURNAL:Circulation. Article Link

Randomized Comparison of Everolimus- and Zotarolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents With Biolimus-Eluting Stents in All-Comer Patients

YJ Youn, J-W Lee, J Yoon et al.

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - There is limited data comparing the Xience everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and the Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) with the BioMatrix biolimus-eluting stent (BES).


METHODS - This open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial enrolled all-comer patients to be randomly treated with either BES, EES, or ZES in a 1:1:1 ratio in 15 centers across South Korea. The primary end point was a device-oriented composite outcome consisting of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization at 24 months. The BES was compared with the EES and the ZES by intention-to-treat analyses with a noninferiority margin of 3.8%, respectively.


RESULTS - Because of slow recruitment and low event rates, this trial was prematurely terminated after enrollment of 1935 (75%) of the intended 2580 patients. Of the 1911 patients randomized to either EES (n=638), BES (n=634), or ZES (n =639), the rate of device-oriented composite outcome was 3.6%, 2.2%, and 3.9%, respectively, at 24 months (BES versus EES: absolute risk difference 1.4% [upper limit of 1-sided 95% CI: 3.2%]; Pfor noninferiority <0.001; BES versus ZES: absolute risk difference 1.7% [upper limit of 1-sided 95% CI: 3.6%]; Pfor noninferiority <0.001).


CONCLUSIONS - The BES was noninferior to either the EES or the ZES in all-comer patients for device-oriented composite outcome at the 24-month follow-up. However, caution is advised regarding interpretation of these results due to the premature termination of this study.


REGISTRATION - URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01397175.