Author + information
- Received March 24, 2009
- Revision received July 9, 2009
- Accepted August 19, 2009
- Published online October 1, 2009.
- Ajay J. Kirtane, MD, SM⁎,
- Rikesh Patel, MD⁎,
- Charles O'Shaughnessy, MD†,
- Paul Overlie, MD‡,
- Brent McLaurin, MD§,
- Stuart Solomon, MD∥,
- Laura Mauri, MD, MSc¶,
- Peter Fitzgerald, MD, PhD#,
- Jeffrey J. Popma, MD⁎⁎,
- David E. Kandzari, MD†† and
- Martin B. Leon, MD⁎,⁎ ()
- ↵⁎Reprint requests and correspondence:
Dr. Martin B. Leon, Professor of Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, Associate Director, Center for Interventional Vascular Therapy, New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York 10032
Objectives The aim of this study was to examine outcomes related to the use of the Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) (Medtronic CardioVascular, Santa Rosa, California) compared with the TAXUS paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) (Boston Scientific Corp., Natick, Massachusetts) in the 477 patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) enrolled in the randomized ENDEAVOR IV (Randomized Comparison of Zotarolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease) trial.
Background Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in diabetic patients is associated with increased rates of restenosis-related end points compared with PCI in nondiabetic patients. Although ZES has been associated with similar clinical efficacy compared with PES in the overall trial population of the ENDEAVOR IV trial, whether these results are maintained in the higher-risk restenosis subgroup of patients with DM has not been determined.
Methods Clinical and angiographic outcomes were compared according to randomized treatment assignment to either ZES or PES.
Results Baseline characteristics were similar among ZES (n = 241) and PES (n = 236) diabetic patients, with slightly longer lesion lengths in PES-treated patients (12.9 mm vs. 14.0 mm, p = 0.041). Among the 86 DM patients assigned to routine angiographic follow-up (18% of the overall DM cohort), in-stent percent diameter stenosis at 8 months was greater among ZES-treated patients (32.9 vs. 21.1, p = 0.023), with a trend toward higher in-stent late loss. One-year clinical outcomes were similar among DM patients treated with either ZES or PES (target vessel failure: 8.6% vs. 10.8%, p = 0.53; target lesion revascularization: 6.9% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.70; target vessel revascularization: 8.6% vs. 9.4%, p = 0.87). There were no significant interactions between DM status and stent type with respect to the outcomes measured, and the relative efficacy/safety of ZES and PES were similar among insulin- and noninsulin-requiring subgroups.
Conclusions One-year clinical outcomes were similar among DM patients treated with ZES and PES in the ENDEAVOR IV trial. These findings parallel the overall trial results, which demonstrated similar efficacy and safety of ZES and PES for single de novo coronary lesions.
The ENDEAVOR IV clinical trial was funded by Medtronic CardioVascular, Santa Rosa, California.
For full author disclosure information, please see the end of this article.
- Received March 24, 2009.
- Revision received July 9, 2009.
- Accepted August 19, 2009.
- American College of Cardiology Foundation