- Email: [email protected]
LATE DIFFERENCE OF CLINICAL OUTCOME BETWEEN ZOTAROLIMUS VERSUS EVEROLIMUS ELUTING CORONARY STENTS IN AN ISOLATED PROXIMAL LEFT ANTERIOR DESCENDING ARTERY LESION
A1890 JACC March 17, 2015 Volume 65, Issue 10S
TCT@ACC-i2: Interventional Cardiology Late Difference of Clinical Outcome Between Zotarolimus versus Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stents in an Isolated Proximal Left Anterior Descending Artery Lesion Poster Contributions Poster Hall B1 Sunday, March 15, 2015, 3:45 p.m.-4:30 p.m. Session Title: Pharmacotherapy and Complex Coronary Interventions Abstract Category: 32. TCT@ACC-i2: Complex Patients/Comorbidities Presentation Number: 2103-308 Authors: Nikolaos Anousakis-Vlachochristou, Konstantinos Toutouzas, Chrysoula Patsa, Andreas Synetos, George Latsios, Eleftherios Tsiamis, Komatanou Efmorfia, Ioannis Matsoukis, Anastasios Spanos, Dimitris Tousoulis, Hippokration General Hospital, Athens Univeristy, Athens, AL, Greece, Naval Hospital of Athens, Athens, Greece
Background: I n this prospective study we investigated the long-term outcomes between Everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and Endeavor Zotarolimus-eluting stents (E-ZES), in patients with an isolated lesion in the proximal left anterior descending artery (pLAD) suffering from chronic stable angina. Methods: We investigated 600 patients in a long-term follow up period up to 7 years. Of these, 420 patients underwent EES and 180 E-ZES implantation. The primary end point was the incidence of Target Lesion Failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac deaths, myocardial infarctions and target lesion revascularizations (TLR). Secondary endpoints were the components of TLF and overall stent thrombosis. Statistical analysis was conducted with the Kaplan-Meier method.
Results: The median time of follow-up was 61 months. At 5 years, the cumulative probability of events were: TLF: EES: 7.5% vs E-ZES: 13.8%, p=0.025, cardiac death: EES: 2.5% vs E-ZES: 3.1%, p=0.937, myocardial infarction: EES: 1.8% vs E-ZES: 1.2%, p = 0.829, TLR: EES: 3.3% vs E-ZES: 10.0%, p=0.003, stent thrombosis: EES: 2.7% vs E-ZES: 2.5%, p=0.965. The difference in probability of survival from TLF rose after 30 months (graphic).
Conclusion: Both stents demonstrated a favourable safety profile, although this study is underpowered for generalised conclusions. Patients treated with EES demonstrated better clinical outcome in comparison with E-ZES and the difference emerged after 30 months of follow-up.
TCT@ACC-i2: Interventional Cardiology Late Difference of Clinical Outcome Between Zotarolimus versus Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stents in an Isolated Proximal Left Anterior Descending Artery Lesion Poster Contributions Poster Hall B1 Sunday, March 15, 2015, 3:45 p.m.-4:30 p.m. Session Title: Pharmacotherapy and Complex Coronary Interventions Abstract Category: 32. TCT@ACC-i2: Complex Patients/Comorbidities Presentation Number: 2103-308 Authors: Nikolaos Anousakis-Vlachochristou, Konstantinos Toutouzas, Chrysoula Patsa, Andreas Synetos, George Latsios, Eleftherios Tsiamis, Komatanou Efmorfia, Ioannis Matsoukis, Anastasios Spanos, Dimitris Tousoulis, Hippokration General Hospital, Athens Univeristy, Athens, AL, Greece, Naval Hospital of Athens, Athens, Greece
Background: I n this prospective study we investigated the long-term outcomes between Everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and Endeavor Zotarolimus-eluting stents (E-ZES), in patients with an isolated lesion in the proximal left anterior descending artery (pLAD) suffering from chronic stable angina. Methods: We investigated 600 patients in a long-term follow up period up to 7 years. Of these, 420 patients underwent EES and 180 E-ZES implantation. The primary end point was the incidence of Target Lesion Failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac deaths, myocardial infarctions and target lesion revascularizations (TLR). Secondary endpoints were the components of TLF and overall stent thrombosis. Statistical analysis was conducted with the Kaplan-Meier method.
Results: The median time of follow-up was 61 months. At 5 years, the cumulative probability of events were: TLF: EES: 7.5% vs E-ZES: 13.8%, p=0.025, cardiac death: EES: 2.5% vs E-ZES: 3.1%, p=0.937, myocardial infarction: EES: 1.8% vs E-ZES: 1.2%, p = 0.829, TLR: EES: 3.3% vs E-ZES: 10.0%, p=0.003, stent thrombosis: EES: 2.7% vs E-ZES: 2.5%, p=0.965. The difference in probability of survival from TLF rose after 30 months (graphic).
Conclusion: Both stents demonstrated a favourable safety profile, although this study is underpowered for generalised conclusions. Patients treated with EES demonstrated better clinical outcome in comparison with E-ZES and the difference emerged after 30 months of follow-up.