Zotarolimus-eluting stent versus sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

Long-term (2-5 years) adverse clinical outcomes associated with ZES versus SES, PES and EES: A Meta-Analysis

Several previously published trials comparing Zotarolimus Eluting Stents (ZES) with Sirolimus Eluting Stents (SES), Paclitaxel Eluting Stents (PES) or Everolimus Eluting Stents (EES) at a follow up period of 1 year, were continually being followed up in order to assess the long-term outcomes. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to compare the long-term (2–5 years) adverse clinical outcomes which were associated with ZES versus SES, PES and EES following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI). Risk Ratios (RR) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) were generated and the analysis was carried out by the RevMan 5.3 software. In this analysis with a total number of 17,606 participants, ZES and EES were associated with similar adverse outcomes including Stent Thrombosis (ST), myocardial infarction (MI), major adverse cardiac events and repeated revascularization. When ZES were compared with SES and PES during the long-term, MI and definite or probable ST were significantly lower with ZES, with RR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.17–1.56; P = 0.0001 and RR: 1.91, 95% CI: 1.33–2.75; P = 0.0004 respectively whereas the other adverse outcomes were similarly manifested. Future research should be able to confirm this hypothesis.

The relationship between re-endothelialization and endothelial function after DES implantation: comparison between paclitaxcel eluting stent and zotarolims eluting stent

Background

Several studies have reported re-endothelialization and endothelial function after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation; however, the relationship between re-endothelialization and endothelial function after DES implantation has not been investigated yet.

Methods

A total of 14 patients underwent evaluation of re-endothelialization by optical coherence tomography (OCT) and endothelial function by incremental Ach infusion at 9 months after DES implantation (ZES: N = 7, PES: N = 7). The neointimal thickness (NIT) inside each strut, strut coverage, and malapposition at every 1 mm cross-section were evaluated by OCT and the endothelial function was estimated by measuring the coronary vaso-reactivity in response to acetylcholine (Ach) infusion into coronary arteries.

Results

Zotarolims eluting stent (ZES), compared with paclitaxcel eluting stent (PES), showed more homogeneous neointimal coverage of stent struts and low rate of malapposition. Vasoconstriction in response to Ach in the peri-stent region was also less pronounced in ZES than PES. In particular, vasoconstriction was more often observed in cases with inhomogeneous neointimal coverage of stent struts in the PES group.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that endothelial function seems to be better preserved with ZES than PES, and homogeneous neointimal coverage of stent struts seem to be associated with the preserved endothelial function. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

First-generation versus second-generation drug-eluting stents in current clinical practice: updated evidence from a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials comprising 31 379 patients

Background

First-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) have become the most widely used devices worldwide for management of coronary artery disease. As remote follow-up data were becoming available, concerns emerged in regard to their long-term safety. Second-generation DES were designed to overcome safety issues, but the results of randomised clinical trials remain conflicting.

Methods

We compared the safety and efficacy of first-generation versus second-generation Food and Drug Administration approved DES; the following devices were included: first-generation sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES); second-generation everolimus-eluting stent (EES), zotarolimus-eluting stent Endeavor and ZES-Resolute (ZES-R). Prespecified safety end points comprised ≤1 and >1 year: overall and cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), definite/definite or probable ST; efficacy end points were target lesion revascularisation and target vessel revascularisation. Composite end points were analysed as well.

Results

33 randomised controlled trials involving 31 379 patients with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome undergoing DES implantation were retrieved. No differences in mortality among devices were found. In the overall class comparison, second-generation DES were associated with a 22% reduction of odds of MI at short-term OR 0.77 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.89) p=0.0002; EES reduced the odds of definite-probable ST compared with PES: OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.73) p=0.006; First-generation SES along with second-generation EES and ZES-R showed similar efficacy in decreasing the odds of repeat revascularisation.

Conclusions

Second-generation EES and ZES-R offer similar levels of efficacy compared with first-generation SES, but are more effective than PES; however, only second-generation EES significantly reduced the incidence of MI and ST, and therefore should be perceived as the safest DES to date.