The impact of patient and lesion complexity on clinical and angiographic outcomes after revascularization with zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting stents: a substudy of the RESOLUTE All Comers Trial (a randomized comparison of a zotarolimus-eluting stent with an everolimus-eluting stent for percutaneous coronary intervention)
Giulio G Stefanini, Patrick W Serruys, Sigmund Silber, Ahmed A Khattab, Robert J van Geuns, Gert Richardt, Pawel E Buszman, Henning Kelbæk, Adrianus J van Boven, Sjoerd H Hofma, Axel Linke, Volker Klauss, William Wijns, Carlos Macaya, Philippe Garot, Carlo Di Mario, Ganesh Manoharan, Ran Kornowski, Thomas Ischinger, Antonio L Bartorelli, Pierre Gobbens, Stephan Windecker, Giulio G Stefanini, Patrick W Serruys, Sigmund Silber, Ahmed A Khattab, Robert J van Geuns, Gert Richardt, Pawel E Buszman, Henning Kelbæk, Adrianus J van Boven, Sjoerd H Hofma, Axel Linke, Volker Klauss, William Wijns, Carlos Macaya, Philippe Garot, Carlo Di Mario, Ganesh Manoharan, Ran Kornowski, Thomas Ischinger, Antonio L Bartorelli, Pierre Gobbens, Stephan Windecker
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of patient and lesion complexity on outcomes with newer-generation zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) and everolimus-eluting stents (EES).
Background: Clinical and angiographic outcomes of newer-generation stents have not been described among complex patients.
Methods: Patients enrolled in the RESOLUTE All Comers trial (A Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) were stratified into "complex" and "simple."
Results: Of 2,292 patients, 1,520 (66.3%) were complex and treated with ZES (n = 764) or EES (n = 756). Event rates were higher among complex patients, and results did not differ between ZES and EES, regardless of complexity. At 1 year, target lesion failure was 8.9% in ZES- and 9.7% in EES-treated complex patients (p = 0.66) and 6.8% in ZES- and 5.7% in EES-treated simple patients (p = 0.55). Rates of cardiac death (1.3% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.24), target-vessel myocardial infarction (4.3% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.90), and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (4.4% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.80) were similar for both stent types among complex patients. Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 20 (1.3%) complex patients with no difference between ZES (1.7%) and EES (0.9%, p = 0.26). Angiographic follow-up showed similar results for ZES and EES in terms of in-stent percentage diameter stenosis (22.2 ± 15.4% vs. 21.4 ± 15.8%, p = 0.67) and in-segment binary restenosis (6.6% vs. 8.0%, p = 0.82) in the complex group.
Conclusions: In this all-comers randomized trial, major adverse cardiovascular events were more frequent among complex than simple patients. The newer-generation ZES and EES proved to be safe and effective, regardless of complexity, with similar clinical and angiographic outcomes for both stent types through 1 year. (RESOLUTE-III All Comers Trial: A Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; NCT00617084).
Copyright © 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Source: PubMed