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

Iqbal J, Serruys PW, Silber S, Kelbaek H, Richardt G, Morel MA, Negoita M, Buszman PE, Windecker S - Circ Cardiovasc Interv (2015)

Bottom Line: 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.At 5-year follow-up, ZES and EES had similar efficacy and safety in a population of patients who had minimal exclusion criteria.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: From the Department of Interventional Cardiology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands (J.I., P.W.S.); Department of Cardiovascular Science, University of Sheffield, UK (J.I.); International Centre for Circulatory Health, Imperial College London, London, UK (P.W.S.); Department of Cardiology, Heart Centre at the Isar, Munich, Germany (S.S.); Righshospitalet, The Heart Center, Copenhagen, Denmark (H.K.); Herzzentrum der Segeberger Kliniken, Bad Segeberg, Germany (G.R.); Cardialysis BV, Rotterdam, The Netherlands (M.-A.M.); Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA (M.N.); Department of Cardiology, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland (P.E.B.); and Department of Cardiology, Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland (S.W.).

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Forest plot showing prespecified subgroups analysis comparing zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting stents for target lesion failure at 5-year follow-up. Zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting stents had similar device-oriented composite end point (DoCE) or target lesion failure (TLF), including combination of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) not clearly attributable to a nontarget vessel, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization. Error bars indicate a point-wise 2-sided 95% confidence interval (1.96 SD). Standard error based on the Greenwood Formula. EES indicates everolimus-eluting stents; and ZES, zotarolimus-eluting stents.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4495878&req=5

Figure 3: Forest plot showing prespecified subgroups analysis comparing zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting stents for target lesion failure at 5-year follow-up. Zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting stents had similar device-oriented composite end point (DoCE) or target lesion failure (TLF), including combination of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) not clearly attributable to a nontarget vessel, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization. Error bars indicate a point-wise 2-sided 95% confidence interval (1.96 SD). Standard error based on the Greenwood Formula. EES indicates everolimus-eluting stents; and ZES, zotarolimus-eluting stents.

Mentions: Stratified analysis of the primary end point (device-oriented composite end point/TLF) at 5 years across different patient subgroups (including diabetics and acute coronary syndromes) and anatomic complexity of coronary artery disease revealed no difference in outcomes between ZES- and EES-treated patients (Figure 3).


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

Iqbal J, Serruys PW, Silber S, Kelbaek H, Richardt G, Morel MA, Negoita M, Buszman PE, Windecker S - Circ Cardiovasc Interv (2015)

Forest plot showing prespecified subgroups analysis comparing zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting stents for target lesion failure at 5-year follow-up. Zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting stents had similar device-oriented composite end point (DoCE) or target lesion failure (TLF), including combination of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) not clearly attributable to a nontarget vessel, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization. Error bars indicate a point-wise 2-sided 95% confidence interval (1.96 SD). Standard error based on the Greenwood Formula. EES indicates everolimus-eluting stents; and ZES, zotarolimus-eluting stents.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4495878&req=5

Figure 3: Forest plot showing prespecified subgroups analysis comparing zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting stents for target lesion failure at 5-year follow-up. Zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting stents had similar device-oriented composite end point (DoCE) or target lesion failure (TLF), including combination of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) not clearly attributable to a nontarget vessel, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization. Error bars indicate a point-wise 2-sided 95% confidence interval (1.96 SD). Standard error based on the Greenwood Formula. EES indicates everolimus-eluting stents; and ZES, zotarolimus-eluting stents.
Mentions: Stratified analysis of the primary end point (device-oriented composite end point/TLF) at 5 years across different patient subgroups (including diabetics and acute coronary syndromes) and anatomic complexity of coronary artery disease revealed no difference in outcomes between ZES- and EES-treated patients (Figure 3).

Bottom Line: 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.At 5-year follow-up, ZES and EES had similar efficacy and safety in a population of patients who had minimal exclusion criteria.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: From the Department of Interventional Cardiology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands (J.I., P.W.S.); Department of Cardiovascular Science, University of Sheffield, UK (J.I.); International Centre for Circulatory Health, Imperial College London, London, UK (P.W.S.); Department of Cardiology, Heart Centre at the Isar, Munich, Germany (S.S.); Righshospitalet, The Heart Center, Copenhagen, Denmark (H.K.); Herzzentrum der Segeberger Kliniken, Bad Segeberg, Germany (G.R.); Cardialysis BV, Rotterdam, The Netherlands (M.-A.M.); Medtronic, Santa Rosa, CA (M.N.); Department of Cardiology, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland (P.E.B.); and Department of Cardiology, Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland (S.W.).

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus