68 research outputs found

    Comparison of zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting coronary stents: final 5-year report of the RESOLUTE all-comers trial

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND Newer-generation drug-eluting stents that release zotarolimus or everolimus have been shown to be superior to the first-generation drug-eluting stents. However, data comparing long-term safety and efficacy of zotarolimus- (ZES) and everolimus-eluting stents (EES) are limited. RESOLUTE all-comers (Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) trial compared these 2 stents and has shown that ZES was noninferior to EES at 12-month for the primary end point of target lesion failure. We report the secondary clinical outcomes at the final 5-year follow-up of this trial. METHODS AND RESULTS RESOLUTE all-comer clinical study is a prospective, multicentre, randomized, 2-arm, open-label, noninferiority trial with minimal exclusion criteria. Patients (n=2292) were randomly assigned to treatment with either ZES (n=1140) or EES (n=1152). Patient-oriented composite end point (combination of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and any revascularizations), device-oriented composite end point (combination of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization), and major adverse cardiac events (combination of all-cause death, all myocardial infarction, emergent coronary bypass surgery, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization) were analyzed at 5-year follow-up. The 2 groups were well-matched at baseline. Five-year follow-up data were available for 98% patients. There were no differences in patient-oriented composite end point (ZES 35.3% versus EES 32.0%, P=0.11), device-oriented composite end point (ZES 17.0% versus EES 16.2%, P=0.61), major adverse cardiac events (ZES 21.9% versus EES 21.6%, P=0.88), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (ZES 2.8% versus EES 1.8%, P=0.12). CONCLUSIONS At 5-year follow-up, ZES and EES had similar efficacy and safety in a population of patients who had minimal exclusion criteria. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00617084

    TCT-4 Efficacy and Safety of Concurrent Administration of Clopidogrel-loading (600mg) and Prasugrel-loading (60mg) in Patients with Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

    Get PDF
    Background: Current STEMI guideline recommendations limit the use of prasugrel to clopidogrel-naĂŻve patients. However, in daily clinical practice a considerable proportion of STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI are preloaded with clopidogrel. Whether the use of prasugrel in clopidogrel pretreated STEMI patients is safe remains unknown. Similarly, the efficacy of a combined loading dose regimen has not been evaluated. Methods: Between 1 September 2009 and 15 October 2012, a total of 1,157 STEMI patients were included in the randomized COMFORTABLE AMI trial (NCT 00962416) and 891 STEMI patients in the SPUM ACS registry (NCT 01000701) at 12 centers. Patients were divided into three groups according to type of peri-procedural antiplatelet loading: (1) Clopidogrel and subsequent Prasugrel loading dose [CP], (2) Prasugrel loading dose alone [P] (3) Clopidogrel loading dose alone [C]; 23 patients were excluded because they were not exposed to Clopidogrel and Prasugrel. The primary safety endpoint was the rate of BARC type 3, 4 and 5 bleeding at 30 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, nonfatal MI and nonfatal stroke at 30 days. Outcomes were analyzed using Cox's Regressions (crude) and multinomial ITPW weighted Cox's Regressions. Results: A total of 2,025 patients were analysed of whom 428 (21.1%) had received CP, 447 (22.1%) patients P alone, and 1,150 (56.8%) patients C alone. The primary safety endpoint was observed among 1.2% of CP, 1.6% of P, and 1.5% of C patients (CP vs C ad. HR 0.99 (0.36-2.72), PC vs P ad. HR 0.73 (0.22-2.41). The primary safety endpoint occurred less frequently among CP (1.9%) compared with C patients (5.0%, adjusted HR 0.47 (0.22-1.00), but with similar frequency among P and C patients (2.9% vs 5.0%, ad. HR 0.68 (0.27-1.73). The net clinical benefit outcome parameter tended to be lower among CP (2.8%) compared with C patients (6.3%, ad. HR 0.56 (0.30-1.05), whereas no significant difference was observed between P and C patients (3.8% vs 6.3%, ad. HR 0.85 (0.39-1.86). Conclusions: Among STEMI patients preloaded with Clopidogrel, the concurrent administration of a Prasugrel loading dose appears safe and potentially more effective than Clopiogrel alone
    • …