Back to Search Start Over

Clinical outcomes of everolimus- and zotarolimus-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction for small coronary artery disease

Authors :
Young Jo Kim
Myung Ho Jeong
Wan Kim
Sang Cheol Cho
Myeong Chan Cho
Youngkeun Ahn
Young Joon Hong
Chong Jin Kim
Kyoo Rok Han
Hyo-Soo Kim
Source :
Journal of Cardiology. 63(6):409-417
Publication Year :
2014
Publisher :
Elsevier BV, 2014.

Abstract

Background and purpose There were limited data about comparison of zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) and everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in patients with small coronary artery disease (CAD), especially in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The objective of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of ZES and EES in patients with AMI for small CAD. Methods and subjects A total 1565 AMI patients treated with Endeavor-ZES (n = 651) (Medtronic CardioVascular, Santa Rosa, CA, USA) or Xience V/Promus-EES (n = 914) (Abbott Vascular, Temecula, CA/Boston Scientific, Natick, MA, USA) for small CAD (stent diameter ≤2.75 mm) in KAMIR (Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry) were enrolled. After propensity score matching to adjust for baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics, we compared a total 1302 patients (651 ZES and 651 EES) about major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1-year. Subgroup analysis about 1-year clinical outcomes was undertaken in patients who were discharged alive. Results Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between the two groups after propensity score matching. Total MACE did not differ between the two groups before (9.8% vs. 8.2%, p = 0.265) and after (9.8% vs. 9.4%, p = 0.778) propensity score matching. The EES group showed lower rate of 1-year cardiac death (5.4% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.041), target lesion failure (TLF; 6.9% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.022), and stent thrombosis (1.4% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.042) compared with the ZES group. However, there were no differences in 1-year cardiac death, TLF, and stent thrombosis in propensity score matched populations. Other various 1-year clinical outcomes showed no difference between the two groups. Subgroup analysis in patients who were discharged alive showed similar outcomes between the two groups at 1-year follow-up. Conclusion In-this propensity score matched analysis, EES and ZES showed no significant difference in clinical outcomes at 1-year follow-up in patients with AMI for small CAD.

Details

ISSN :
09145087
Volume :
63
Issue :
6
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Journal of Cardiology
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....fd5af33c85f54921635c38883aa6abf4
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjcc.2013.10.016