Clinical outcomes in real‐world patients with bifurcation lesions receiving Xience V everolimus‐eluting stents: Four‐year results from the Xience V USA study

The Xience V USA Study demonstrated safety and efficacy of the XIENCE V® everolimus‐eluting stent (EES) in a large, prospective study of a real‐world, unselected patient population. There is limited long‐term data regarding EES performance in high risk patients with bifurcation lesions (BIF). The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the long‐term safety and effectiveness of EES in patients with BIF from the XIENCE V USA study.

[1]  G. Stone,et al.  Randomized Comparison of FFR-Guided and Angiography-Guided Provisional Stenting of True Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: The DKCRUSH-VI Trial (Double Kissing Crush Versus Provisional Stenting Technique for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcation Lesions VI). , 2015, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[2]  P. Serruys,et al.  A randomized trial of a dedicated bifurcation stent versus provisional stenting in the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions. , 2015, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[3]  Fred S Apple,et al.  Universal definition of myocardial infarction. , 2007, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[4]  P. Smits,et al.  Two‐year outcomes after deployment of XIENCE V everolimus‐eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention of bifurcation lesions: A report from the SPIRIT V single arm study , 2013, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[5]  K. Seung,et al.  Periprocedural myocardial infarction is not associated with an increased risk of long-term cardiac mortality after coronary bifurcation stenting. , 2013, International journal of cardiology.

[6]  Mitchell W Krucoff,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). , 2011, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[7]  Gregg W Stone,et al.  Everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in coronary artery disease. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  A. Baumbach,et al.  Randomized Trial of Simple Versus Complex Drug-Eluting Stenting for Bifurcation Lesions: The British Bifurcation Coronary Study: Old, New, and Evolving Strategies , 2010, Circulation.

[9]  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.

[10]  U. Siebert,et al.  Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  G. Stone,et al.  SPIRIT IV trial design: a large-scale randomized comparison of everolimus-eluting stents and paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease. , 2009, American heart journal.

[12]  G. Stone,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 , 2009, Circulation.

[13]  O. Muller,et al.  Interference of Drug-Eluting Stents With Endothelium-Dependent Coronary Vasomotion: Evidence for Device-Specific Responses , 2008, Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions.

[14]  P. Fitzgerald,et al.  Comparison of an everolimus-eluting stent and a paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease: a randomized trial. , 2008, JAMA.

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

[16]  H. Bøtker,et al.  Comparison of sirolimus-eluting and bare metal stents in coronary bifurcation lesions: subgroup analysis of the Stenting Coronary Arteries in Non-Stress/Benestent Disease Trial (SCANDSTENT). , 2006, American heart journal.

[17]  P. Serruys,et al.  A randomised comparison of an everolimus-eluting coronary stent with a paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent:the SPIRIT II trial. , 2006, EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology.

[18]  M. Niemelä,et al.  Randomized Study on Simple Versus Complex Stenting of Coronary Artery Bifurcation Lesions: The Nordic Bifurcation Study , 2006, Circulation.

[19]  K. Kent,et al.  Correlates and Long-Term Outcomes of Angiographically Proven Stent Thrombosis With Sirolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents , 2006, Circulation.

[20]  K. Detre,et al.  Immediate and one-year outcome in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions in the modern era (NHLBI dynamic registry). , 2001, The American journal of cardiology.

[21]  C. Orr,et al.  Angioplasty for dilatation of complex coronary artery bifurcation stenoses. , 1985, The American journal of cardiology.

[22]  P. Serruys,et al.  Four‐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 , 2011, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.