CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Other Relevant Articles

Abstract

Recommended Article

Incidence, Predictors, and Outcomes of In-Hospital Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Following Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Current Perspectives on Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Cardiovascular Disease: A White Paper by the JAHA Editors Guidelines in review: Comparison of the 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes and the 2015 ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation Radial Versus Femoral Access for Coronary Interventions Across the Entire Spectrum of Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials Association between urinary dickkopf-3, acute kidney injury, and subsequent loss of kidney function in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: an observational cohort study Plaque progression assessed by a novel semi-automated quantitative plaque software on coronary computed tomography angiography between diabetes and non-diabetes patients: A propensity-score matching study Older Adults in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit: Factoring Geriatric Syndromes in the Management, Prognosis, and Process of Care: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Digital learning and the future cardiologist

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.