Five-Year Outcome After Implantation of Zotarolimus- and Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Randomized Trial Participants and Nonenrolled Eligible Patients: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance Long-term follow-up after a clinical trial of 2 often-used, newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) in a broad patient population is of interest. Comprehensive long-term outcome of eligible nonenrolled patients has never been reported. Objective To assess 5-year safety and efficacy of 2 newer-generation DESs in randomized participants with non–ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes or stable angina and to evaluate long-term outcomes of nonenrolled eligible patients treated with the same DESs. Design, Setting, and Participants The TWENTE (Real-World Endeavor Resolute vs Xience V Drug-Eluting Stent Study in Twente) trial is an investigator-initiated, patient-blinded, randomized, comparative DES trial that enrolled patients from June 18, 2008, to August 26, 2010. Most patients had non–ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes and complex lesions. Of all 1709 eligible patients, 1391 (81.4%) were treated in the TWENTE trial with zotarolimus-eluting (ZES, n = 697) or everolimus-eluting (EES, n = 694) cobalt-chromium stents. The remaining 318 eligible patients (18.6%) were not enrolled but underwent nonrandomized treatment with the same DESs. Data were analyzed from August 26, 2015, to October 11, 2016. Event rates (percentages) were derived from log-rank analysis and may differ from straightforward calculation (nominator/denominator). The 5-year follow-up of the TWENTE participants was prespecified in the trial protocol; that of the nonenrolled participants was ad hoc. Main Outcomes and Measures Target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel–related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Results Of 1709 eligible participants, 1233 (72.1%) were men, 476 (27.9%) were women, and mean (SD) age was 64.6 (10.6) years. Among the 1370 of 1391 TWENTE trial participants (98.5% follow-up), TVF was similar between those in the ZES (16.1%) and EES (18.1%) groups (P = .36). Stent thrombosis rates were low: definite (7 of 697 [1.0%] vs 4 of 694 [0.6%]; P = .37) and occurred after more than 1 year in 3 (0.4%) with ZES vs 4 (0.6%) with EES (P = .69). The 318 nonenrolled eligible patients (308 patients [96.9%] of whom were followed up) were older and had more advanced disease than trial participants. Their TVF rate was higher than that of trial participants (71 of 318 [23.3%] vs 233 of 1391 [17.1%]; P = .02), which partly reflects a difference in cardiac mortality (23 of 318 [7.7%] vs 60 of 1391 [4.5%]; P = .03). Similar 5-year rates were found for myocardial infarction (91 of 1391 [6.7%] vs 22 of 318 [7.2%]; P = .80) and target vessel revascularization (129 of 1391 [9.7%] vs 34 of 318 [11.4%]; P = .36) between trial participants and nonenrolled eligible patients. In all eligible patients (ie, trial participants plus nonenrolled eligible patients), the TVF rate was only slightly higher than in trial participants only (18.3% vs 17.1%). Conclusions and Relevance Long-term outcome data from nonenrolled eligible patients support the validity of the TWENTE trial findings and present, with the trial, a strong case for the long-term safety and efficacy of the newer-generation DESs used. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01066650

[1]  J. W. Louwerenburg,et al.  Very thin strut biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents in allcomers with coronary artery disease (BIO-RESORT): a three-arm, randomised, non-inferiority trial , 2016, The Lancet.

[2]  A. Kaltoft,et al.  Safety and Efficacy of Everolimus- Versus Sirolimus-Eluting Stents: 5-Year Results From SORT OUT IV. , 2016, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[3]  P. Serruys,et al.  Clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with everolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents (EXAMINATION): 5-year results of a randomised trial , 2016, The Lancet.

[4]  C. V. van Mieghem,et al.  Final 5-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Everolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice: The COMPARE Trial (A Trial of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Paclitaxel Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice). , 2015, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[5]  G. Stone,et al.  Long-Term Safety of Drug-Eluting and Bare-Metal Stents: Evidence From a Comprehensive Network Meta-Analysis. , 2015, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[6]  P. Serruys,et al.  Comparison of Zotarolimus- and Everolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents , 2015, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[7]  S. Windecker,et al.  Safety and Efficacy of Resolute Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents Compared With Everolimus-Eluting Stents: A Meta-Analysis , 2015, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[8]  M. Stoel,et al.  Safety of second-generation drug-eluting stents three years after randomised use in the TWENTE trial. , 2015, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[9]  Hyun-Jae Kang,et al.  A randomized comparison of platinum chromium-based everolimus-eluting stents versus cobalt chromium-based Zotarolimus-Eluting stents in all-comers receiving percutaneous coronary intervention: HOST-ASSURE (harmonizing optimal strategy for treatment of coronary artery stenosis-safety & effectiveness , 2014, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[10]  H. Bøtker,et al.  Differential clinical outcomes after 1 year versus 5 years in a randomised comparison of zotarolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents (the SORT OUT III study): a multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial , 2014, The Lancet.

[11]  J. Jeppesen,et al.  Similar five-year outcome with paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting coronary stents , 2014, Scandinavian cardiovascular journal : SCJ.

[12]  J. W. Louwerenburg,et al.  Third-generation zotarolimus-eluting and everolimus-eluting stents in all-comer patients requiring a percutaneous coronary intervention (DUTCH PEERS): a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority trial , 2014, The Lancet.

[13]  Rebecca J. Cook,et al.  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. , 2003, The Journal of the American College of Dentists.

[14]  A. Kastrati,et al.  Zotarolimus- versus everolimus-eluting stents for unprotected left main coronary artery disease. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[15]  H. Suryapranata,et al.  Safety and efficacy outcomes of first and second generation durable polymer drug eluting stents and biodegradable polymer biolimus eluting stents in clinical practice: comprehensive network meta-analysis , 2013, BMJ.

[16]  J. W. Louwerenburg,et al.  Clinical outcome following stringent discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy after 12 months in real-world patients treated with second-generation zotarolimus-eluting resolute and everolimus-eluting Xience V stents: 2-year follow-up of the randomized TWENTE trial. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[17]  C. Terkelsen,et al.  Biolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer-coated stent versus durable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent in unselected patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (SORT OUT V): a randomised non-inferiority trial , 2013, The Lancet.

[18]  M. Stoel,et al.  Comparison of eligible non-enrolled patients and the randomised TWENTE trial population treated with Resolute and Xience V drug-eluting stents. , 2012, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[19]  J. W. Louwerenburg,et al.  A randomized controlled trial in second-generation zotarolimus-eluting Resolute stents versus everolimus-eluting Xience V stents in real-world patients: the TWENTE trial. , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[20]  P. Serruys,et al.  Evaluating the 'all-comers' design: a comparison of participants in two 'all-comers' PCI trials with non-participants. , 2011, European heart journal.

[21]  K. Eagle,et al.  Comparison of baseline characteristics, management and outcome of patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome in versus not in clinical trials. , 2010, The American journal of cardiology.

[22]  Volker Klauss,et al.  Comparison of zotarolimus-eluting and everolimus-eluting coronary stents. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  P. Serruys,et al.  Myocardial infarction adjudication in contemporary all-comer stent trials: balancing sensitivity and specificity. Addendum to the historical MI definitions used in stent studies. , 2010, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[24]  P. Smits,et al.  Second-generation everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-life practice (COMPARE): a randomised trial , 2010, The Lancet.

[25]  R. Whitbourn,et al.  Clinical and angiographic results with the next-generation resolute stent system: a prospective, multicenter, first-in-human trial. , 2009, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[26]  A. Kastrati,et al.  Paclitaxel- versus sirolimus-eluting stents for unprotected left main coronary artery disease. , 2009, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[27]  F. Eberli,et al.  Biolimus-eluting stent with biodegradable polymer versus sirolimus-eluting stent with durable polymer for coronary revascularisation (LEADERS): a randomised non-inferiority trial , 2008, The Lancet.

[28]  P. Serruys,et al.  Clinical End Points in Coronary Stent Trials: A Case for Standardized Definitions , 2007, Circulation.

[29]  M. Simoons,et al.  Patients enrolled in coronary intervention trials are not representative of patients in clinical practice: results from the Euro Heart Survey on Coronary Revascularization. , 2006, European heart journal.

[30]  P. Rothwell,et al.  External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?” , 2005, The Lancet.