This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Garg, S. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Garg, S. Related Collections Related Article

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)

Scot Garg, MBChB^_*, Patrick Serruys, MD, PhD^_*,_*, Yoshinobu Onuma, MD^_*, Cécile Dorange, MSc, Susan Veldhof, RN, Karine Miquel-Hébert, PhD, Krishnankutty Sudhir, MD, PhD, Jean Boland, MD, Kurt Huber, MD^||, Eulogio Garcia, MD^¶, Jan A.M. te Riele, MD^# on behalf of the SPIRIT II Investigators

^_* Thoraxcenter, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
Abbott Vascular, Diegem, Belgium
Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California
C.H.R. La Citadelle, Liege, Belgium
^|| Wilhelminenspital der Stadt, Vienna, Austria
^¶ University Hospital Gregorio Maranon, Madrid, Spain
^# Amphia Hospital, Breda, the Netherlands

	Abstract

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Conclusions REFERENCES

 
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.

Key Words: angioplasty • everolimus-eluting stent • paclitaxel-eluting stent

Abbreviations and Acronyms   ARC = Academic Research Consortium   BMS = bare-metal stent(s)   CABG = coronary artery bypass graft   CI = confidence interval   CK-MB = creatinine kinase-myocardial band   DES = drug-eluting stent(s)   DS = diameter stenosis   EES = everolimus-eluting stent(s)   HR = hazard ratio   ID-TLR = ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization   IVUS = intravascular ultrasound   MACE = major adverse cardiovascular events   MI = myocardial infarction   PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention   PES = paclitaxel-eluting stent(s)   RR = relative risk   SES = sirolimus-eluting stent(s)   ULN = upper limit of normal   TVF = target vessel failure   TVR = target vessel revascularization

The FUTURE (The First Use To Underscore restenosis Reduction with Everolimus) I (4,5) and FUTURE II (6) studies were the first to demonstrate the feasibility of using everolimus on a DES. The SPIRIT (Clinical Evaluation of the Xience V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients with de novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) FIRST study has subsequently demonstrated clinical safety and efficacy of the EES out to 4 years' follow-up (7). In particular, significantly lower in-stent late loss was demonstrated at 12-month angiographic follow-up, compared with an identical BMS (8).

The assessment of the EES continued with SPIRIT II and the larger SPIRIT III studies. Both involved the randomized comparison of EES to the TAXUS (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in patients with a maximum of 2 de novo coronary artery lesions. In both studies, there was a significant reduction in major adverse cardiac events (MACE) with EES compared with PES at 12-month follow-up (9,10). A "late loss catch-up" with EES was suggested by the 2-year outcome data from SPIRIT II that showed no significant difference in angiographic and clinical outcomes between the 2 stents (11). The 2-year follow-up data from SPIRIT III, however, has shown promising results with improvements in event-free survival and lower rates of stent thrombosis with the use of an EES (12).

The current study presents the 3-year clinical outcome of patients enrolled in the SPIRIT II study treated with either EES or a PES. This represents the longest available clinical follow-up for EES in a moderately sized population.

	Methods

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Conclusions REFERENCES

 
Patient population.   The patient population has been described previously (13). In brief, SPIRIT II was a multicenter trial enrolling 300 patients who were randomized in a ratio of 3:1 to receive either an EES, XIENCE V (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) (n = 223), or a PES (n = 77). Both TAXUS Express² (73% of lesions) and TAXUS Liberté (27% of lesions) were used in the control arm. A detailed description of everolimus and the EES is provided elsewhere (13,14). The ethics committee of each participating institution approved the study protocol, and all patients gave written informed consent.

All patients were over the age of 18, with evidence of myocardial ischemia and a maximum of 2 de novo native coronary artery lesions in different major epicardial vessels. For inclusion, on visual estimation, target lesion(s) were required to be: in a vessel with a reference vessel diameter of between 2.5 and 4.25 mm; <28 mm in length; and have a percentage diameter stenosis (DS) of between 50% and 99%, with a Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction flow grade >1. Patients with documented evidence of recent (<3 days) myocardial infarction (MI); a left ventricular ejection fraction <30%; waiting heart transplantation; or having a known sensitivity or contraindications to aspirin, heparin, bivalirudin, clopidogrel or ticlopidine, cobalt, chromium, nickel, tungsten, everolimus, paclitaxel, acrylic, and fluoropolymers were excluded. Angiographic lesions involving the left main stem lesion or the aorto-ostial junction; located within 2 mm of the origin of the left anterior descending or left circumflex; that were heavily calcified; or that had associated visible thrombus were also excluded.

Study procedure.   Patients were randomized between EES and PES after the identification of suitable lesions on preliminary angiography. Physicians were not blinded, in view of the different packaging for each stent. Standard interventional techniques were used to treat the lesion; in particular pre-dilation was mandatory, and stent implantation was performed at a pressure not exceeding the rated burst pressure. Post-dilation was left to the operator's discretion; however, if post-dilation was performed, balloons were required to be shorter than the length of the deployed stent. In the event of a bailout procedure and the need for an additional stent, the stent was required to be of the same type as the first implanted stent.

In a subset of 152 consecutive patients enrolled in pre-selected centers, intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) was performed after optimal stent placement had been achieved. Periprocedural pharmaceutical treatment was administrated according to standard hospital practice. Procedural anticoagulation was achieved with unfractionated heparin or bivalirudin. The use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors was left to the operator's discretion. All patients enrolled into the study were to receive 75 mg of aspirin daily for a minimum of 1 year and clopidogrel 75 mg for a minimum of 6 months after the index procedure.

Follow-up.   Patient review was initially planned at 1, 6, 9, 12, and 24 months after the index procedure; however, a subsequent protocol amendment enabled further clinical evaluation to be performed on an annual basis out to 5 years. At outpatient visits, patients were specifically questioned about the development of angina or the occurrence of any adverse events. Angiographic follow-up for all patients was planned at 180 days, with IVUS planned in a subset of 152 consecutive patients (from selected centers). Angiography and IVUS were repeated after 2 years in these 152 consecutive patients.

Study end points.   The clinical end point of this 3-year follow-up study was MACE, defined as a composite of cardiac death, MI, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (ID-TLR) by coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) or PCI. Secondary clinical end points included target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, MI, ID-TLR, and non–target lesion ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (ID-TVR). An independent blinded clinical events committee (CEC) evaluated all clinical end points, and a data and safety monitoring board, not affiliated with the study, ensured the safe conduct of the trial.

Definitions.   All deaths were considered cardiac unless an undisputed noncardiac cause was present. The onset of the trial was before the publication of the Academic Research Consortium's (ARC) consensus definitions for DES study end points, and therefore the only cardiac enzymes available in all patients to adjudicate events were creatinine kinase (CK), and creatinine kinase-myocardial band (CK-MB) (15). Q-wave MI was defined as the development of new pathological Q waves. A non–Q-wave MI was defined as a typical rise and fall of CK-MB, with at least 1 of the following: ischemic symptoms; electrocardiographic changes indicative of ischemia (ST-segment elevation or depression); or an associated coronary artery intervention. For a nonprocedural/spontaneous MI the CK-MB was required to be 2 times the upper limit of normal (ULN). A CK-MB 3 times the ULN or 5 times the ULN was required for an MI to be defined post-PCI or post-CABG, respectively.

The ID-TLR was defined as revascularization of the target lesion in association with any of the following: a positive test of ischemia, with either exercise testing or fractional/coronary flow reserve; ischemic symptoms and an angiographic DS 50% by online quantitative coronary angiography; or DS 70% by online quantitative coronary angiography without ischemic symptoms or a positive functional study.

The protocol for stent thrombosis changed after the publication of the ARC definitions for stent thrombosis (15). Those stent thrombotic events occurring before the adoption of the ARC definitions were re-adjudicated by the CEC to the new guidelines.

Statistical methods.   The rationale for sample size calculations for this study has previously been reported (13). In this article, binary variables are presented as percentages and compared with the Fisher exact test. All analyses are by intention-to-treat with all patients randomized in the study, regardless of the treatment actually received. However, patients who were lost to follow-up, in whom no event had occurred before the follow-up windows, were not included in the denominator for calculations of binary end points. Survival curves were constructed for time-to-event variables with Kaplan-Meier estimates and compared by the log-rank test. Statistical analyses were performed with the SAS statistical package (version 9.1.3, SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina).

	Results

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Conclusions REFERENCES

 
Patient population and lesion characteristics.   The baseline demographic, clinical, and angiographic characteristics of both treatment groups have been published previously (16) and are summarized in Table 1. No significant differences were present in any of the parameters listed.

View larger version (14K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 1 Clinical Follow-Up of Patient Population Flow chart indicating the flow of patients through the study. In total 264 (88%) patients attended for 3 years of follow-up (f/u). The major reason for the loss of follow-up, which was similar in both groups, was failure to sign a new consent form after the protocol amendment allowing study follow-up to be extended to 5 years.

Clinical outcomes at 3-year follow-up.   The hierarchical and non-hierarchical events at 3-year clinical follow-up are shown in Tables 2 and 3, respectively; and Figure 2 shows the Kaplan-Meier survival curves for cardiac death, MI, ID-TLR, and MACE.

View larger version (24K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 2 Kaplan-Meier Event Curves at 3-Year Follow-Up Kaplan-Meier event curves at 3 years follow-up for (A) myocardial infarction (MI), (B) ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR), (C) cardiac death, and (D) major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). HR = hazard ratio; NA = not applicable.

During the 3-year follow-up period, 7 PES patients (10.1%) and 9 EES patients (4.6%) underwent ID-TLR (RR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.18 to 1.17, p = 0.14). All of these were with PCI, apart from 1 patient in the EES group who underwent CABG. The Kaplan-Meier curve for ID-TLR (Fig. 2B) shows significantly lower ID-TLR with EES at 1-year follow-up; however, this significance was not maintained during long-term follow-up.

The rate of MACE (cardiac death, MI, ID-TLR), which was 7.2% in those patients treated with EES and 15.9% in those treated with PES (RR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.94, p = 0.053), was consistently lower for EES compared with PES; however, the difference between the 2 varied with follow-up. As shown on the Kaplan-Meier curve (Fig. 2), a significant difference in MACE between the 2 stents was observed as early as 12 months (EES vs. PES, 2.7% vs. 9.1%, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.87, p_logrank = 0.018); however, between years 1 and 2 EES seemed to "catch-up." Nevertheless, a significant difference re-emerged by the third year of follow-up (EES vs. PES, 6.4% vs. 14.9%, HR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.94, p_logrank = 0.029), which was the result of 3 additional patients with MACE observed in the PES group, whereas no new patients experienced MACE in the EES group.

The rates of stent thrombosis as per ARC definitions are listed in Table 4. After the 2-year follow-up, no definite/probable stent thrombosis occurred in the EES group, compared with 1 in the PES group. Overall, at 3-year follow-up the rate of stent thrombosis was numerically lower in the EES group (1.0% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.28). The proportion of patients returning for 3-year follow-up, who remained on dual antiplatelet therapy at 3 years, was 14.1% and 21.2% for patients treated with EES and PES, respectively (Fig. 3).

View larger version (10K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 3 Cumulative Duration of DAPT in Patients With 3-Year Follow-Up Graph demonstrating the cumulative use of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) among the 264 patients who returned for 3-year follow-up. In total, 14.1% of patients treated with everolimus-eluting stents and 21.2% of patients treated with paclitaxel-eluting stents were still receiving DAPT at 1,080 days of follow-up.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Conclusions REFERENCES

In the present study, patients randomized to EES experienced fewer MIs, fewer ID-TLR, and had a trend for less cardiac death compared with those patients treated with PES. The overall rates of both MACE and TVF were numerically lower in favor of EES. These 3-year results demonstrate the maintenance of the superior outcomes with EES, which were observed as early as 6 months (13).

Two-year outcome data from SPIRIT II showed the maintenance of the advantage of EES over PES; however, HRs were less prominent than previously observed at 12 months (11). Furthermore, the results of 2-year angiographic follow-up in 97 EES patients demonstrated a 94% increase in the mean in-stent late loss among EES between 6 months and 2 years (0.17 ± 0.32 mm vs. 0.33 ± 0.37 mm), whereas a 3% increase was observed with PES over the same time period (0.33 ± 0.32 mm vs. 0.34 ± 0.34 mm). It is worth noting, however, that angiographic follow-up at 2 years was in a subset and not the entire SPIRIT II population, and as such, an unintended selection bias in this subset cannot be ruled out.

Nevertheless, concerns were raised as to the clinical relevance of this "late-catch up phenomenon" that was observed with EES. The present study, however, confirms that this increase in neointimal hyperplasia did not translate into any clinical events. In fact, between years 2 and 3, 2 ID-TLR were performed for EES (1 of which in a patient who already had ID-TLR before 6 months), and similarly, 2 ID-TLR were performed for PES. The absolute difference in rates of ID-TLR between EES and PES actually increased from 4.7% at 1 year to 5.2% at 3 years (Fig. 2). In addition, no cardiac deaths occurred with EES between years 2 and 3. Of note, the Kaplan-Meier curves for MACE and all its components at 3 years seem to diverge, further supporting the superior performance of the EES with long-term follow-up.

The much larger SPIRIT III trial randomized EES to PES in a 2:1 ratio and enrolled 1,002 patients with similar inclusion and exclusion criteria. The demographic data of both patient populations were similar. The SPIRIT III trial again confirmed the superior performance of EES compared with PES with long-term follow-up with a 45% reduction in MACE at 2 years (7.3% vs. 12.8%; HR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.83, p = 0.004). Importantly, and unlike in SPIRIT II, there was no reduction in HRs between 1 and 2 years; in fact, the clinical benefits of EES seem to increase (12).

Although the current study is underpowered to make any definitive conclusions regarding stent thrombosis rates between EES and PES, it does confirm low rates of late stent thrombosis with EES (1.0%), which is comparable to published data for sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) and PES, at similar follow-up (18). Historically, first-generation DES have been associated with a persistent risk of very late stent thrombosis, extending out to 4-year follow-up (18); however, this might not be the same for the newer generation of DES such as the XIENCE V. In the current study EES has demonstrated no episodes of acute or late stent thrombosis, 2 episodes (1 definite and 1 probable) of very late stent thrombosis between year 1 and year 2, and no stent thrombosis events after 2 years. Similarly, the SPIRIT III trial demonstrated a low rate of very late (0.3%) and overall stent thrombosis (1.3%) with EES. The relationship of the late loss catch-up, if any, with lower late stent thrombosis is unclear; it is possible that neointimal healing, reflected as a modest increase in late loss over time, might in fact be protective.

The SES has been demonstrated to be the most efficacious first-generation DES (19–21), and therefore, the use of PES in this study might account for the favorable outcomes observed with EES. In principle, because both everolimus and sirolimus inhibit the mammalian target of rapamycin in a similar manner, a comparison between the 2 might demonstrate similar clinical outcomes. Indirect comparisons do support this; for example, similar rates of late loss occurred in the EES arm of the SPIRIT III trial and the SES arm of the SIRIUS (Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in de novo Native Coronary Lesions) trial (EES 0.16 mm vs. SES 0.17 mm) (9,22); however, as yet no randomized head-to-head comparison has been made between the 2 stents. There are, in addition to the antiproliferative coating, other notable differences between the stents, which might result in different clinical outcomes. In brief, EES is made of cobalt chromium, as opposed to stainless steel (PES and SES), which allows comparative radial strength to be achieved with considerably thinner stent struts. This can reduce vascular injury, intimal hyperplasia, and the risk of restenosis (23). Vascular injury and inflammation are also potentially reduced with the use of more biocompatible polymers as found on the EES, compared with the durable and less biocompatible polymers found on the PES and SES.

A clearer picture will be obtained when the results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter EXCELLENT (Efficacy of Xience/promus versus Cypher in rEducing Late Loss after stENTing) trial are available. This study is enrolling approximately 1,400 patients with the aim of comparing the safety and efficacy of the EES and SES and the optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (6 or 12 months). The co-primary end points are the noninferiority of EES compared with SES in inhibiting neointima hyperplasia and preventing late loss at 9 months and TVF at 12 months for comparison of dual antiplatelet therapy duration (24). Furthermore, additional studies of the EES include the SPIRIT IV, SPIRIT V, XIENCE V SPIRIT WOMEN, XIENCE V USA, and XIENCE V INDIA, which are all designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the EES in over 14,000 real-world patients.

Study limitations.   This study was not powered to detect significant differences in the safety profiles of either stent. In view of the small number of patients recruited and the loss of 8% of patients from follow-up (which was similar in both groups), caution is required when interpreting the differences in events.

	Conclusions

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Conclusions REFERENCES

 
The present study reports the favorable 3-year clinical outcomes of the EES, which are consistent with the results from earlier studies with shorter follow-up. In this study, compared with the PES, the EES demonstrated a reduction in cardiac events, clinical restenosis, and overall MACE rate at long-term follow-up. In addition, the overall lower rate of stent thrombosis and absence of stent thrombosis after 2 years with EES is potentially significant and requires additional investigation.

	Footnotes

 
Cécile Dorange, Susan Veldhof, Dr. Miquel-Hébert, and Dr. Sudhir are employees of Abbott Vascular.

^_* Reprint requests and correspondence: Prof. Patrick Serruys, Ba583a, Thoraxcenter, Erasmus MC,'s-Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 CE Rotterdam, the Netherlands (Email: p.w.j.c.serruys{at}erasmusmc.nl).

Manuscript received May 14, 2009; revised manuscript received September 8, 2009, accepted October 6, 2009.

	REFERENCES

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Conclusions REFERENCES

 

1. Morice MC, Serruys PW, Sousa JE, et al. A randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent for coronary revascularization N Engl J Med 2002;346:1773-1780.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
2. Jeremias A, Kirtane A. Balancing efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention Ann Intern Med 2008;148:234-238.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. Camenzind E, Steg PG, Wijns W. Stent thrombosis late after implantation of first-generation drug-eluting stents: a cause for concern Circulation 2007;115:1440-1455discussion 1455.[Free Full Text]
4. Costa RA, Lansky AJ, Mintz GS, et al. Angiographic results of the first human experience with everolimus-eluting stents for the treatment of coronary lesions (the FUTURE I trial) Am J Cardiol 2005;95:113-116.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
5. Grube E, Sonoda S, Ikeno F, et al. Six- and twelve-month results from first human experience using everolimus-eluting stents with bioabsorbable polymer Circulation 2004;109:2168-2171.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Tsuchiya Y, Lansky AJ, Costa RA, et al. Effect of everolimus-eluting stents in different vessel sizes (from the pooled FUTURE I and II trials) Am J Cardiol 2006;98:464-469.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
7. Windecker S. Are All New Drug Eluting Stents the Same? www.europcronline.com/fo/lecture/view_slide.php?id=5455 2006Accessed April 10, 2009.
8. Serruys PW, Ong ATL, Piek JJ, et al. A randomised comparison of a durable polymer Everolimus-Eluting stent with a bare metal coronary stent: the SPIRIT First trial Eurointervention 2005;1:58-65.[Medline]
9. Stone GW, Midei M, Newman W, et al. Comparison of an everolimus-eluting stent and a paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease: a randomized trial JAMA 2008;299:1903-1913.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. Ruygrok P, Desaga M, van den Branden F, et al. One year clinical follow-up of the XIENCE V Everolimus-eluting stent system in the treatment of patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions: the SPIRIT II study Eurointervention 2007:315-320.
11. Claessen BE, Beijk MA, Legrand V, et al. Two-year clinical, angiographic, and intravascular ultrasound follow-up of the XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions: the SPIRIT II trial Circ Cardiovasc Intervent 2009;2:339-347.[CrossRef]
12. Stone GW, Midei M, Newman W, et al. Randomized comparison of everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents: two-year clinical follow-up from the clinical evaluation of the Xience V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients with de novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions (SPIRIT) III trial Circulation 2009;119:680-686.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
13. Serruys PW, Ruygrok P, Neuzner J, et al. A randomised comparison of an everolimus-eluting coronary stent with a paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent: the SPIRIT II trial Eurointervention 2006;2:286-294.[Medline]
14. Farb A, John M, Acampado E, Kolodgie FD, Prescott MF, Virmani R. Oral everolimus inhibits in-stent neointimal growth Circulation 2002;106:2379-2384.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R, et al. Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions Circulation 2007;115:2344-2351.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
16. Serruys PW, Ruygrok P, Neuzner J, et al. A randomised comparison of an everolimus-eluting coronary stent with a paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent: the SPIRIT II trial Eurointervention 2006;2:286-294.[Medline]
17. Tsuchida K, Piek JJ, Neumann F-J, et al. One-year results of a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in de novo coronary narrowings (the SPIRIT FIRST trial) Eurointervention 2006;1:266-272.
18. Daemen J, Wenaweser P, Tsuchida K, et al. Early and late coronary stent thrombosis of sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in routine clinical practice: data from a large two-institutional cohort study Lancet 2007;369:667-678.[CrossRef][Medline]
19. Stettler C, Wandel S, Allemann S, et al. Outcomes associated with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: a collaborative network meta-analysis Lancet 2007;370:937-948.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
20. Morice MC, Colombo A, Meier B, et al. Sirolimus- vs paclitaxel-eluting stents in de novo coronary artery lesions: the REALITY trial: a randomized controlled trial JAMA 2006;295:895-904.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
21. Windecker S, Remondino A, Eberli FR, et al. Sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents for coronary revascularization N Engl J Med 2005;353:653-662.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
22. Moses JW, Leon MB, Popma JJ, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery N Engl J Med 2003;349:1315-1323.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
23. Kastrati A, Mehilli J, Dirschinger J, et al. Intracoronary stenting and angiographic results: strut thickness effect on restenosis outcome (ISAR-STEREO) trial Circulation 2001;103:2816-2821.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
24. Park KW, Yoon JH, Kim JS, et al. Efficacy of Xience/promus versus Cypher in rEducing Late Loss after stENTing (EXCELLENT) trial: study design and rationale of a Korean multicenter prospective randomized trial Am Heart J 2009;157811–7.e1.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. W. Krucoff, D. R. Rutledge, L. Gruberg, L. Jonnavithula, J. N. Katopodis, W. Lombardi, V. W. Mao, S. K. Sharma, C. A. Simonton, H. P. Tamboli, et al. A New Era of Prospective Real-World Safety Evaluation: Primary Report of XIENCE V USA (XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System Condition-of-Approval Post-Market Study) J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv., December 1, 2011; 4(12): 1298 - 1309. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				U. Baber, R. Mehran, S. K. Sharma, S. Brar, J. Yu, J.-W. Suh, H.-S. Kim, S.-J. Park, A. Kastrati, A. de Waha, et al. Impact of the Everolimus-Eluting Stent on Stent Thrombosis: A Meta-Analysis of 13 Randomized Trials J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 4, 2011; 58(15): 1569 - 1577. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. Alfonso and C. Fernandez Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents: Moving the Field Forward J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 28, 2011; 58(1): 26 - 29. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Garg and P. W. Serruys Coronary Stents: Current Status J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., August 31, 2010; 56(10_Suppl_S): S1 - S42. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Garg and P. W. Serruys Coronary Stents: Looking Forward J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., August 31, 2010; 56(10_Suppl_S): S43 - S78. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Garg and P. W Serruys Drug-eluting stents: a reappraisal Heart, April 1, 2010; 96(7): 489 - 493. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Windecker and L. Raber The DESIRE-Late Registry: What Is Left to Be Desired? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv., January 1, 2010; 3(1): 19 - 21. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Mukherjee and D. J. Moliterno Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents and the Continuous Need for Rapidly Available Real-World Data J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Intv., December 1, 2009; 2(12): 1236 - 1239. [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Garg, S. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Garg, S. Related Collections Related Article