z-logo
Premium
Comparison of 2‐year outcomes between zotarolimus‐eluting and everolimus‐eluting new‐generation cobalt–chromium alloy stents in real‐world diabetic patients
Author(s) -
Miyazaki Tadashi,
Latib Azeem,
Panoulas Vasileios F.,
Miyazaki Sakiko,
Costopoulos Charis,
Sato Katsumasa,
Naganuma Toru,
Kawamoto Hiroyoshi,
Daida Hiroyuki,
Colombo Antonio
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
catheterization and cardiovascular interventions
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.988
H-Index - 116
eISSN - 1522-726X
pISSN - 1522-1946
DOI - 10.1002/ccd.25797
Subject(s) - medicine , mace , zotarolimus , cardiology , clinical endpoint , myocardial infarction , percutaneous coronary intervention , target lesion , drug eluting stent , propensity score matching , stent , revascularization , intravascular ultrasound , surgery , clinical trial
Background : To date, it remains unknown whether different types of new‐generation drug‐eluting stents have a differential impact on long‐term outcomes in diabetic patients. Methods and Results : In this historical cohort study (two Italian centers), we analyzed 400 diabetic patients with 553 coronary lesions treated with new‐generation CoCr zotarolimus‐eluting stents (R‐ZES: 136 patients, 196 lesions) or everolimus‐eluting stents (EES: 264 patients, 357 lesions) between October 2006 and August 2012. Primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) over a 2‐year follow‐up period. MACE was defined as all‐cause mortality, any myocardial infarction (MI) and/or target lesion revascularization (TLR). Multivessel revascularization, intervention for restenotic lesion and use of intravascular ultrasound were significantly higher in the R‐ZES group, whereas small stent (≤2.5 mm) deployment was significantly higher in the EES group. At 2‐year follow‐up, there was no significant difference in occurrence of MACE (R‐ZES vs EES: 22.8% vs 18.9%, P  = 0.39). Similarly, no significant differences were observed in the composite endpoint of all‐cause mortality/MI (10.0% vs 10.3%, P  = 0.86) or TLR (12.4% vs 7.4%, P  = 0.11). Adjustment for confounders and baseline propensity‐score matching did not alter the aforementioned associations. Conclusion : After 2 years of follow up similar outcomes (MACE, all‐cause mortality/MI, TLR) were observed in real‐world diabetic patients, including those with complex lesions and patient characteristics, treated with R‐ZES and EES. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom