Second-generation everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-life practice (COMPARE): a randomised trial

BACKGROUND Everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents, compared with bare metal stents, reduced the risk of restenosis in clinical trials with strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. We compared the safety and efficacy of the second-generation everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-life practice. METHODS We randomly assigned 1800 consecutive patients (aged 18-85 years) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention at one centre to treatment with everolimus-eluting or paclitaxel-eluting stents. The primary endpoint was a composite of safety and efficacy (all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation) within 12 months. Patients were not told which stent they had been allocated. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01016041. FINDINGS Follow-up was completed in 1797 patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 56 (6%) of 897 patients in the everolimus-eluting stent group versus 82 (9%) of 903 in the paclitaxel-eluting stent group (relative risk 0.69 [95% CI 0.50-0.95], p value for superiority=0.02). The difference was attributable to a lower rate of stent thrombosis (6 [<1%] vs 23 [3%], 0.26 [0.11-0-64], p=0.002), myocardial infarction (25 [3%] vs 48 [5%], 0.52 [0.33-0.84], p=0.007), and target vessel revascularisation (21 [2%] vs 54 [6%], 0.39 [0.24-0.64], p=0.0001). Cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularisation occurred in 44 [5%] patients in the everolimus-eluting stent group versus 74 [8%] patients in the paclitaxel-eluting stent group, p value for superiority was 0.005. INTERPRETATION The everolimus-eluting stent is better than the second generation paclitaxel-eluting stent in unselected patients in terms of safety and efficacy. On the basis of our results, we suggest that paclitaxel-eluting stents should no longer be used in everyday clinical practice. FUNDING Unrestricted grants from Abbott Vascular and Boston Scientific.

[1]  R. Virmani,et al.  Endothelial cell recovery between comparator polymer-based drug-eluting stents. , 2008, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[2]  F. Eberli,et al.  Sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents for coronary revascularization. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  D. Baim,et al.  Polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting TAXUS Liberté stent in de novo lesions: the pivotal TAXUS ATLAS trial. , 2007, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[4]  Antonio Colombo,et al.  Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[5]  P. Serruys,et al.  The everolimus-eluting stent in real-world patients: 6-month follow-up of the X-SEARCH (Xience V Stent Evaluated at Rotterdam Cardiac Hospital) registry. , 2009, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[6]  Gregg W. Stone,et al.  A polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease , 2004 .

[7]  Gary G. Koch,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis Using The SAS1 System , 1995 .

[8]  Marco Valgimigli,et al.  The unrestricted use of paclitaxel- versus sirolimus-eluting stents for coronary artery disease in an unselected population: one-year results of the Taxus-Stent Evaluated at Rotterdam Cardiology Hospital (T-SEARCH) registry. , 2005, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[9]  F. Eberli,et al.  Two-year clinical outcome after implantation of sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in diabetic patients. , 2008, European heart journal.

[10]  A. Kastrati,et al.  Paclitaxel-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stents to prevent restenosis in diabetic patients. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

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

[12]  J S Alpert,et al.  Myocardial infarction redefined--a consensus document of The Joint European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology Committee for the redefinition of myocardial infarction. , 2000, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[13]  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.

[14]  Jeffrey W Moses,et al.  Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery. , 2003, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  Ralph D'Agostino,et al.  Stent thrombosis in randomized clinical trials of drug-eluting stents. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  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.

[17]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Survival plots of time-to-event outcomes in clinical trials: good practice and pitfalls , 2002, The Lancet.

[18]  Neville Kukreja,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 , 2007, The Lancet.

[19]  Ousa,et al.  A RANDOMIZED COMPARISON OF A SIROLIMUS-ELUTING STENT WITH A STANDARD STENT FOR CORONARY REVASCULARIZATION , 2002 .