Real-World Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents in Korean ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) Patients with or without Acute Heart Failure Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Biodegradable polymers (BDPs) and ultrathin struts were recently introduced to drug-eluting stents (DES) to further improve outcomes. In this study, we analyzed and compared the effect of the ultrathin strut BDP-DES (UBDP-DES) with the conventional durable polymer-DES (DP-DES) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). A total of 356 STEMI patients (n = 160 in the UBDP-DES group and n = 196 in the DP-DES group) were enrolled. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF), including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemic-driven, target lesion revascularization (ID-TLR). The mean age was 60.3 ± 12.7 years (male 81.7%), and the median follow-up duration was 63.8 months. TLF was numerically more frequent in the UBDP-DES group (8.1% vs. 4.1%; HR 2.14; 95% CI 0.89-5.18; p = 0.091). Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to balance discrepancies in the baseline characteristics due to patients in the UBDP-DES group initially having more unstable vital signs. However, after PSM (n = 116 in each group), there was no significant difference in TLF (5.3% vs. 5.3%; HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.34-3.22; p = 0.947) or other secondary endpoints including ID-TLR. In the subgroup analysis, subjects with initial acute heart failure (AHF), defined as Killip class ≥ 3, were associated with 13.6% chance of 30-day mortality (9-fold of those without AHF), although chances of repeat revascularization were low (3.0%). Among patients with AHF, the UBDP-DES group was associated with a numerically higher chance of TLF compared with the DP-DES group. There was no difference in TLF between groups in patients without AHF. This study showed that UBDP-DES has long-term clinical outcomes similar to those of conventional DP-DES in real-world Korean STEMI patients receiving PPCI, especially in those without initial AHF.

Second generation drug-eluting stents: a focus on safety and efficacy of current devices

Introduction: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) represents the most frequent procedure performed in medicine. Second generation drug eluting stents (DES) have been developed to reduce the rates of late and very late complications of first generation DES.Areas covered: To improve long-term efficacy and safety of patients undergoing PCI, second generation DES have been developed with novel stent platforms, biocompatible durable and biodegradable polymers and newer antiproliferative agents. In this review we provide an overview of second generation DES and their clinical trials, discussing safety and effectiveness of these devices, and outlining clinical indication for use.Expert commentary: Numerous clinical trials have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of second generation DES over the last decade. These devices represent the gold standard treatment in stable and acute coronary syndromes.

Nitric oxide releasing poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) films using a fluorinated nitric oxide donor to greatly decrease chemical leaching

Nitric oxide (NO) releasing polymers have been widely applied as biomaterials for a variety of biomedical implants and devices. However, the chemical leaching of NO donors and their byproduct species is almost always observed during the application of polymers doped with NO donors, unless the donor is covalently linked to the polymer. Herein, we report the first NO releasing poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) (PVDF-HFP) fluorinated copolymer prepared by incorporating a fluorinated S-nitrosothiol as the NO donor. Under physiological conditions, the resulting polymeric films can release NO for 16 days. Importantly, due to both fluorine-fluorine and electrostatic charge interactions between the fluorinated NO donor and the PVDF-HFP copolymer, the total chemical leaching of the fluorinated NO donor and its disulfide product after 9 day was only 0.6% (mol%) of the initial amount of NO donor loaded into the film. These new NO release PVDF-HFP films exhibit antimicrobial and anti-biofilm activities against both Gram positive S. aureus and Gram negative P. aeruginosa strains. The NO-releasing PVDF-HFP polymer can also be coated on Teflon tubing to release NO under physiological conditions for extended time periods. This NO-releasing PVDF-HFP copolymer with greatly reduced chemical leaching could help enhance the biocompatibility and antimicrobial activity of various biomedical devices. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: Fluoropolymers have been widely used in creating various biomedical implants and devices. However, nitric oxide (NO) release fluoropolymers have not been well studied to date. Additionally, in the application of biomaterials doped with NO donors, a significant amount of NO donors and their byproducts almost always leach into aqueous environment. We now report an NO releasing poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) (PVDF-HFP) fluoropolymer by incorporating a new fluorinated S-nitrosothiol. The NO release can last for 16 days under physiological conditions. The total chemical leaching was determined to be only 0.6 mol% of the initial S-nitrosothiol loaded. As expected, significant antimicrobial/anti-biofilm activities of the NO release PVDF-HFP film were observed against Gram positive S. aureus and Gram negative P. aeruginosa bacterial strains.

Comparison of acute gain and late lumen loss after PCI with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting stents: an exploratory observational study prior to a randomised trial

AIMS

The study sought to compare the acute gain and two-year follow-up late lumen loss (LLL) between the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) and the analogous everolimus-eluting metallic stent (EES). The current analysis included all the patients recruited in the ABSORB Cohort B and SPIRIT II trials implanted with a single 3.0×18 mm device (Absorb BVS or EES) who underwent serial angiographic examinations at baseline and at two-year follow-up. The acute gain was defined as the difference between post- and preprocedural minimal lumen diameter (MLD). The in-stent/scaffold LLL was calculated as the difference in stent/scaffold segment between the post-procedural MLD and follow-up MLD. Thirty-three patients (33 lesions) implanted with the Absorb BVS, and 26 patients (28 lesions) implanted with the EES were studied. The acute gain was similar in the Absorb BVS group (1.23±0.38 mm) compared to the EES group (1.32±0.26 mm, p=0.29). The in-stent/scaffold LLL at two-year follow-up in the Absorb BVS group (0.26±0.19 mm) was also similar compared to the EES group (0.22±0.22 mm, p=0.29). Although the two groups had similar two-year clinical outcomes (major adverse cardiac events: Absorb BVS: 6.1% vs. EES: 0.0%), patients treated with the Absorb BVS exhibited a significantly lower two-year in-stent/scaffold MLD compared to the EES (2.02±0.26 mm vs. 2.22±0.34 mm, p=0.01). Although BVS and EES demonstrated similar two-year clinical outcomes, patients treated with the Absorb BVS exhibited a significantly lower two-year in-stent/scaffold MLD compared to patients treated with the EES. Appropriately powered randomised trials are necessary to confirm these exploratory results and evaluate their prognostic and clinical significance.

New-generation drug-eluting stents: focus on Xience V® everolimus-eluting stent and Resolute® zotarolimus-eluting stent

Compared to bare metal stent angioplasty, first-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) have markedly reduced the incidence of in-stent restenosis. However, given the increased concerns over late and very late stent thrombosis, newer-generation DES were developed. To date, these DES have virtually replaced the use of first-generation DES worldwide. In this review article, we carefully consider the pre-clinical and clinical trials that have been performed with currently available, european conformity-marked and Food and Drug Administration-approved new-generation Resolute(®) and Xience V(®) DES.

Abluminal biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (COMPARE II): a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Drug-eluting stents with durable biocompatible or biodegradable polymers have been developed to address the risk of thrombosis associated with first-generation drug-eluting stents. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of a biodegradable polymer-coated biolimus-eluting stent with a thin-strut everolimus-eluting stent coated with a durable biocompatible polymer.

METHODS

This open-label, prospective, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial was undertaken at 12 sites across Europe. We used limited exclusion criteria (age >18 years, life expectancy >5 years, reference vessel diameter 2·0-4·0 mm) to enrol patients eligible for percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly allocated (2:1) by computer-generated random numbers to receive either a biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent (Nobori, Terumo, Tokyo, Japan) or a durable fluoropolymer-based everolimus-eluting stent (Xience V or Prime, Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA, or Promus, Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA). The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death and non-fatal myocardial infarction) and efficacy (clinically indicated target vessel revascularisation) at 12 months, analysed by intention to treat. Patients received dual antiplatelet therapy for 12 months after discharge. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01233453.

FINDINGS

From Jan 12, 2009, to Feb 7, 2011, we enrolled 2707 patients (4025 lesions), 1795 of whom were assigned to receive the biolimus-eluting stent (2638 lesions) and 912 to an everolimus-eluting stent (1387 lesions). 2688 (99·3%) patients completed 12 months' follow-up. Significantly more patients in the biolimus-eluting stent group received a non-assigned stent than did those in the everolimus-eluting stent group (105 [5·9%] vs 19 [2·1%]; p<0·0001). The primary endpoint occurred in 93 (5·2%) patients in the biolimus-eluting stent group and 44 (4·8%) patients in the everolimus-eluting stent group at 12 months (relative risk 1·07 [95% CI 0·75-1·52]; p(non-inferiority)<0·0001). Analysis per protocol did not change the outcome of this trial (p(non-inferiority)<0·0001).

INTERPRETATION

Biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stents are as safe and efficacious as the current standard of a thin-strut everolimus-eluting stent with a durable biocompatible polymer. We need to follow-up patients for longer to show whether the biolimus-eluting stent reduces the risk of stent thrombosis after 1 year when compared with the everolimus-eluting stent.

FUNDING

Terumo Europe (Leuven, Belgium) and the Research Foundation of the Cardiology Department, Maasstad Hospital (Rotterdam, Netherlands).

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of paclitaxel-eluting coroflex please stents and paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: a randomized PIPA trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and efficacy of the new Coroflex™ Please stents with conventional Taxus™ Liberte stents in patients with coronary artery lesions.

BACKGROUND

The Coroflex™ Please stent is a new version of paclitaxel-eluting stent, and observational cohort studies have reported similar angiographic and clinical outcomes as with the first-generation stents. However, it has not been directly compared with the early generation paclitaxel-eluting stents in a multicenter, prospective, and randomized study.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 319 patients to receive Coroflex™ Please stents (159 patients; 198 lesions) or Taxus™ Liberte stents (160 patients; 232 lesions). The primary end point was angiographic in-segment late luminal loss at 9 months.

RESULTS

Most baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between these two groups. The Coroflex™ Please and Taxus™ Liberte stents showed similar in-segment late loss (0.40 ± 0.53 mm vs. 0.39 ± 0.52 mm, P = 0.98) and rates of in-segment binary restenosis (22.2% vs. 18.8%, P = 0.48) at 9 months. After clinical follow-up for 12 months, the two groups had similar rates of death (1.3% vs. 1.3%, P > 0.99), myocardial infarction (3.8% vs. 7.5%, P = 0.22), stent thrombosis (2.5% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.72), and target-lesion revascularization (7.5% vs. 7.5%, P = 0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

The Coroflex™ Please stent resulted in similar angiographic and clinical outcomes as the Taxus™ Liberte stent in patients with coronary artery lesions.

Everolimus-eluting stents: update on current clinical studies

Everolimus-eluting stents (EES) have become the most commonly implanted coronary stents worldwide. This review describes and analyzes the clinical data supporting the use of EES, focusing primarily on published, randomized, controlled trials. Everolimus-eluting stents have been shown to have less restenosis, stent thrombosis, and periprocedural myocardial infarction compared with earlier generation paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). Lower rates of adverse events for EES compared with PES were generally seen in all subgroups, with the notable exception of patients with diabetes mellitus. There have been fewer, randomized, clinical trials comparing EES with either sirolimus-eluting stents or zotarolimus-eluting stents, although very good results with EES have been observed in the trials that have been performed. Recent clinical trial data suggest that this excellent safety and efficacy profile is maintained in a next-generation EES designed to have improved mechanical properties and radiopacity.

The SPIRIT V study: a clinical evaluation of the XIENCE V everolimus-eluting coronary stent system in the treatment of patients with de novo coronary artery lesions

OBJECTIVES

The SPIRIT V (A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With De Novo Coronary Artery Lesions) study is a post-market surveillance experience of the XIENCE V (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in patients with higher-risk coronary anatomy.

BACKGROUND

Previous pre-approval studies have shown the safety and efficacy of EES in highly selected groups of patients.

METHODS

The SPIRIT V trial is a prospective, open label, single arm, multicenter study. Two thousand seven hundred patients with multiple de novo coronary artery lesions suitable for treatment with a planned maximum of 4 EES were enrolled at 93 centers in Europe, Asia Pacific, Canada, and South Africa. Lesions had a reference vessel diameter between 2.25 and 4.0 mm and a length of ≤ 28 mm by visual estimation. An independent clinical events committee adjudicated all end point-related events. The primary end point was the composite rate of all death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularization at 30 days. Secondary end points included stent thrombosis and acute success (clinical device and procedure success).

RESULTS

At 30 days, the primary composite end point of all death, MI, and target vessel revascularization was 2.7%. At 1 year, rates of cardiac death, overall MI, and target lesion revascularization were 1.1%, 3.5%, and 1.8%, respectively. The cumulative rate of definite and probable stent thrombosis was low at 0.66% at 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of EES in patients with multiple, complex de novo lesions yielded 1-year major adverse cardiac events, stent thrombosis, and target lesion revascularization rates that are comparable to those of the more controlled SPIRIT II and SPIRIT III trials-which included patients with restricted inclusion/exclusion criteria-and other all-comer population, physician-initiated studies like the X-SEARCH (Xience Stent Evaluated At Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital) and COMPARE (A Randomized Controlled Trial of Everolimus-eluting Stents and Paclitaxel-eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice) trials.

Tissue coverage of a hydrophilic polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent vs. a fluoropolymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent at 13-month follow-up: an optical coherence tomography substudy from the RESOLUTE All Comers trial

Aims

To compare the tissue coverage of a hydrophilic polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) vs. a fluoropolymer-coated everolimus-eluting stent (EES) at 13 months, using optical coherence tomography (OCT) in an ‘all-comers' population of patients, in order to clarify the mechanism of eventual differences in the biocompatibility and thrombogenicity of the devices.

Methods and results

Patients randomized to angiographic follow-up in the RESOLUTE All Comers trial (NCT00617084) at pre-specified OCT sites underwent OCT follow-up at 13 months. Tissue coverage and apposition were assessed strut by strut, and the results in both treatment groups were compared using multilevel logistic or linear regression, as appropriate, with clustering at three different levels: patient, lesion, and stent. Fifty-eight patients (30 ZES and 28 EES), 72 lesions, 107 stents, and 23 197 struts were analysed. Eight hundred and eighty-seven and 654 uncovered struts (7.4 and 5.8%, P= 0.378), and 216 and 161 malapposed struts (1.8 and 1.4%, P= 0.569) were found in the ZES and EES groups, respectively. The mean thickness of coverage was 116 ± 99 µm in ZES and 142 ± 113 µm in EES (P= 0.466). No differences in per cent neointimal volume obstruction (12.5 ± 7.9 vs. 15.0 ± 10.7%) or other areas–volumetric parameters were found between ZES and EES, respectively.

Conclusion

No significant differences in tissue coverage, malapposition, or lumen/stent areas and volumes were detected by OCT between the hydrophilic polymer-coated ZES and the fluoropolymer-coated EES at 13-month follow-up.

Clinical safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents compared to paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) is a second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) which is designed to provide better stent deliverability, deployment, safety, and efficacy. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the relative safety and efficacy of the EES compared with the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES).

METHODS

the published literature was scanned by formal searches of electronic databases from January 2001 to August 2010. All randomized trials comparing EES versus PES and reporting the clinical outcomes were examined for analysis.

RESULTS

a total of four randomized trials were included, involving 6,788 patients. EES were superior to PES with respect to the major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR)) within 1-year follow-up (OR 0.57; P < 0.001). The 1-year rates of MI, ischemia-driven TLR, and definite or probable stent thrombosis (ST) were also lower with EES than with PES (OR 0.57, P < 0.001 for MI; OR 0.48, P < 0.001 for TLR; OR 0.34, P < 0.001 for ST). There was no significant difference between EES and PES with respect to cardiac mortality (OR 0.93; P = 0.81).

CONCLUSION

the EES is superior to the PES in terms of 1-year safety and efficacy.

Five-year long-term clinical follow-up of the XIENCE V everolimus eluting coronary stent system in the treatment of patients with de novo coronary artery lesions: the SPIRIT FIRST trial

BACKGROUND

Drug-eluting stents have shown to be superior over bare metal stents in clinical and angiographic outcomes after percutaneous treatment of coronary artery stenosis. However, long-term follow-up data are scarce and only available for sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents.

AIM

To assess the feasibility and performance of the XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stent (EES) versus an identical bare metal stent after a 5-year follow-up period.

METHODS

SPIRIT FIRST was a First in Man, multicentre, prospective, single-blind, clinical trial, randomizing 60 patients with a single de novo coronary artery lesion in a ratio of 1:1 to either an everolimus eluting or a bare metal control stent.

RESULTS

At 5-year clinical follow-up, data were available in 89% and 86% of patients in the everolimus and control arm, respectively. In the everolimus arm, no additional death, myocardial infarction, clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR), or clinically driven target vessel revascularization (TVR) events were observed between 1- and 5-year follow-up. The 5-year hierarchical major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and target vessel failure (TVF) rates for the everolimus arm were 16.7% (4/24) for both endpoints. In the control group, no additional cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or clinically driven TLR events were observed between 2- and 5-year follow-up. No additional clinically driven TVR events were observed between 3- and 5-year follow-up. The 5-year hierarchical MACE and TVF rates for the control arm were 28.0% (7/25) and 36.0% (9/25), respectively. No stent thromboses were observed in either the everolimus arm or the control arm up to 5 years.

CONCLUSION

The favorable 5-year long term clinical outcome of the EES is consistent with the results from other studies of the EES with shorter follow-up.

Would SYNTAX have been a positive trial if XIENCE V had been used instead of TAXUS?: A meta-analysis of a first-generation vs. a second-generation drug-eluting stent system

Treatment options for coronary revascularisation include percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). In the 'synergy between PCI with TAXUS and cardiac surgery (SYNTAX)' trial, PCI and CABG using state-of-the-art techniques (using paclitaxel-eluting stents and arterial grafts, respectively) were compared in the treatment of complex coronary artery disease. In Syntax, PCI was inferior to CABG at one year, entirely due to an increased repeat intervention rate. We hypothesised that the use of a superior drug-eluting stent system could reduce the need for repeat intervention. (Neth Heart J 2010;18:451-3.).

3-year clinical follow-up of the XIENCE V everolimus-eluting coronary stent system in the treatment of patients with de novo coronary artery lesions: the SPIRIT II trial (Clinical Evaluation of the Xience V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients with de novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions)

OBJECTIVES

This paper reports the 3-year clinical outcomes of the XIENCE V (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) everolimus-eluting stent (EES) compared with the TAXUS (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in the randomized SPIRIT II (Clinical Evaluation of the Xience V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients with de novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) study.

BACKGROUND

The Xience V EES is a new-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) that might offer advantages over the first-generation DES in terms of improved clinical outcomes and a better safety profile.

METHODS

The SPIRIT II trial was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, single-blind, clinical trial, randomizing 300 patients with de novo coronary artery lesions in a ratio of 3:1 to either EES or PES. The primary end point was in-stent late loss at 180 days.

RESULTS

At 3-year clinical follow-up cardiac death was numerically lower with EES than PES (0.5% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.056). The observed rate of myocardial infarction was 3.6% for EES and 7.2% for PES (p = 0.31). The rate of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization was 4.6% and 10.1% for EES and PES, respectively (p = 0.14). Overall, there was a trend for lower major adverse cardiovascular events in the EES group compared with PES (7.2% vs. 15.9%, p = 0.053). The rate of stent thrombosis was low and comparable in both groups (EES 1.0% vs. PES 2.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study reports the favorable 3-year clinical outcomes of the EES, which are consistent with the results from other studies of the EES with shorter follow-up.

Update on the everolimus-eluting coronary stent system: results and implications from the SPIRIT clinical trial program

Drug-eluting stents (DES) have had a major impact in interventional cardiology. Compared to bare metal stents, they significantly reduce restenosis and the need for target vessel revascularization. Four DES are available in the US, the first-generation sirolimus-eluting (Cypher^®) and paclitaxel-eluting (Taxus^®) stents and later approved second-generation everolimus-eluting (Xience V^®) and zotarolimus-eluting (Endeavor^®) stents. The Xience V stent was approved on the basis of clinical efficacy and safety data from 3 studies in the SPIRIT clinical trial program. Within this trial series, the Xience V was superior to its bare metal stent counterpart, the Vision® stent, and noninferior to the paclitaxel-eluting stent for target vessel failure at 9 months. This review provides a comprehensive assessment of the data derived from both the pre- and post-approval randomized controlled trials and registry studies of Xience V that comprise the SPIRIT clinical trial program including recently published mid-term outcomes. The implications of the results in terms of interventional practice will be discussed.

The everolimus-eluting stent in real-world patients: 6-month follow-up of the X-SEARCH (Xience V Stent Evaluated at Rotterdam Cardiac Hospital) registry

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in comparison with bare-metal stents (BMS), sirolimus-eluting stents (SES), and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) on the 6-month clinical outcomes in an all-comer population.

BACKGROUND

EES have been shown to be effective in the context of randomized trials with selected patients. The effect of EES implantation in more complex, unselected patients cannot be directly extrapolated from these findings.

METHODS

In total, 649 consecutive unselected patients treated exclusively with EES were enrolled. Six-month clinical end points were compared with 3 historical cohorts (BMS, n = 450; SES, n = 508; and PES, n = 576). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization (TVR).

RESULTS

The patients treated with EES were older, presented more frequently with acute myocardial infarction, and had more complicated lesions than the other groups. The EES group demonstrated a higher incidence of all-cause mortality than the SES group and a lower incidence of TVR than the BMS group. Multivariate adjustment demonstrated that BMS was associated with higher TVR and MACE risk than EES (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for TVR: 2.02 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11 to 3.67]; adjusted HR for MACE: 2.15 [95% CI: 1.36 to 3.42]); that SES had a clinical outcome similar to that of EES, and that PES had a higher risk of MACE than did EES (adjusted HR: 1.57 [95% CI: 1.02 to 2.44]).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that the use of EES in an unselected population may be as safe as and more effective than BMS, may be as safe and effective as SES, may be as safe as PES, and may be more effective than PES.