Left ventricular assist systems and infection-related outcomes: A comprehensive analysis of the MOMENTUM 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In a randomized controlled trial (MOMENTUM 3), the HeartMate 3 (HM3) fully magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) demonstrated superiority over the HeartMate II (HMII) axial-flow LVAD. These findings were driven by hemocompatibility-related outcomes, but infection-related outcomes were not altered by device choice. In this trial-level analysis, we analyzed the clinical patterns of infection-related outcomes over 2 years of support. METHODS: In MOMENTUM 3, 1,020 patients were implanted with either the HM3 (n = 515) or HMII (n = 505) pump. Clinical characteristics and morbidity- and mortality-related outcomes were evaluated to identify predictors associated with major infectious complications, using univariable and multivariable models. RESULTS: The cumulative number of infections at 2 years was 1,213 (634 HM3 and 579 HMII), and major infection occurred in 58% of patients with the HM3 and 56% of patients with the HMII (p = 0.57). Infections of a local nature unrelated to pump components were most common (n = 681/1,213; 56%), followed by driveline-associated infection (n = 329/1,213; 27%), sepsis (n = 194/1,213; 16%), and other events (n = 9/1,213; 0.7%). Bacterial pathogens were implicated in 806 of 1,213 events (66%); significant predictors of infection included sex (women vs men; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.38, p = 0.003), pre-implant use of intra-aortic balloon pump (HR: 1.33, p = 0.02), pre-implant history of cardiac surgery (HR: 1.28, p = 0.01), and body mass index ≥ 30 (HR: 1.40, p < 0.0001). Most deaths in those with infection occurred owing to non-infectious causes. CONCLUSION: Infection is the most common adverse effect in patients implanted with contemporary continuous-flow LVADs, with most such events unrelated to the pump or its peripheral components. Whether chronic mechanical circulatory devices confer an immunomodulatory effect pre-disposing to infection warrants closer scrutiny to understand and ameliorate this morbidity.

Association of Clinical Outcomes With Left Ventricular Assist Device Use by Bridge to Transplant or Destination Therapy Intent: The Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy With HeartMate 3 (MOMENTUM 3) Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are well established in the treatment of advanced heart failure, but it is unclear whether outcomes are different based on the intended goal of therapy in patients who are eligible vs ineligible for heart transplant. Objective: To determine whether clinical outcomes in the Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy With HeartMate 3 (MOMENTUM 3) trial differed by preoperative categories of bridge to transplant (BTT) or bridge to transplant candidacy (BTC) vs destination therapy (DT). Design, Setting, and Participants: This study was a prespecified secondary analysis of the MOMENTUM 3 trial, a multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing the magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow HeartMate 3 (HM3) LVAD to the axial-flow HeartMate II (HMII) pump. It was conducted in 69 centers with expertise in managing patients with advanced heart failure in the United States. Patients with advanced heart failure were randomized to an LVAD, irrespective of the intended goal of therapy (BTT/BTC or DT). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was survival free of disabling stroke or reoperation to remove or replace a malfunctioning device at 2 years. Secondary end points included adverse events, functional status, and quality of life. Results: Of the 1020 patients with implants (515 with HM3 devices [50.5%] and 505 with HMII devices [49.5%]), 396 (38.8%) were in the BTT/BTC group (mean [SD] age, 55 [12] years; 310 men [78.3%]) and 624 (61.2%) in the DT group (mean [SD] age, 63 [12] years; 513 men [82.2%]). Of the patients initially deemed as transplant ineligible, 84 of 624 patients (13.5%) underwent heart transplant within 2 years of LVAD implant. In the primary end point analysis, HM3 use was superior to HMII use in patients in the BTT/BTC group (76.8% vs 67.3% for survival free of disabling stroke and reoperation; hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.40-0.94]; log-rank P = .02) and patients in the DT group (73.2% vs 58.7%; hazard ratio, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.46-0.81]; log-rank P < .001). For patients in both BTT/BTC and DT groups, there were not significantly different reductions in rates of pump thrombosis, stroke, and gastrointestinal bleeding with HM3 use relative to HMII use. Improvements in quality of life and functional capacity for either pump were not significantly different regardless of preimplant strategy. Conclusions and Relevance: In this trial, the superior treatment effect of HM3 over HMII was similar for patients in the BTT/BTC or DT groups. It is possible that use of arbitrary categorizations based on current or future transplant eligibility should be clinically abandoned in favor of a single preimplant strategy: to extend the survival and improve the quality of life of patients with medically refractory heart failure. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02224755.

A Fully Magnetically Levitated Left Ventricular Assist Device - Final Report.

BACKGROUND: In two interim analyses of this trial, patients with advanced heart failure who were treated with a fully magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow left ventricular assist device were less likely to have pump thrombosis or nondisabling stroke than were patients treated with a mechanical-bearing axial-flow left ventricular assist device. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with advanced heart failure to receive either the centrifugal-flow pump or the axial-flow pump irrespective of the intended goal of use (bridge to transplantation or destination therapy). The composite primary end point was survival at 2 years free of disabling stroke or reoperation to replace or remove a malfunctioning device. The principal secondary end point was pump replacement at 2 years. RESULTS: This final analysis included 1028 enrolled patients: 516 in the centrifugal-flow pump group and 512 in the axial-flow pump group. In the analysis of the primary end point, 397 patients (76.9%) in the centrifugal-flow pump group, as compared with 332 (64.8%) in the axial-flow pump group, remained alive and free of disabling stroke or reoperation to replace or remove a malfunctioning device at 2 years (relative risk, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 0.91; P<0.001 for superiority). Pump replacement was less common in the centrifugal-flow pump group than in the axial-flow pump group (12 patients [2.3%] vs. 57 patients [11.3%]; relative risk, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.38; P<0.001). The numbers of events per patient-year for stroke of any severity, major bleeding, and gastrointestinal hemorrhage were lower in the centrifugal-flow pump group than in the axial-flow pump group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced heart failure, a fully magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow left ventricular assist device was associated with less frequent need for pump replacement than an axial-flow device and was superior with respect to survival free of disabling stroke or reoperation to replace or remove a malfunctioning device. (Funded by Abbott; MOMENTUM 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02224755.).

Long-term evaluation of a fully magnetically levitated circulatory support device for advanced heart failure-two-year results from the HeartMate 3 CE Mark Study.

AIM: This study aimed to assess safety and outcomes of patients, 2 years after implantation with the HeartMate 3 Left Ventricular Assist System. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study included 50 adults with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IIIB or IV symptoms or American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association stage D heart failure with an ejection fraction ≤25% and a cardiac index ≤2.2 L/min/m2 without inotropes, or inotrope-dependent with optimal medical management, or listed for heart transplant. The median duration of left ventricular assist device support was 694 days (range: 19-833 days). At baseline, cardiac index was 1.8 ±0.5 L/min/m2 , 58% of patients were receiving inotropes, and 92% were INTERMACS profiles 2-4. At 2 years, Kaplan-Meier survival was 74 ±6%, 5 (10%) patients were transplanted, and 32 patients (64%) remain with support. Adverse event rates include bleeding requiring surgery (16%), gastrointestinal bleeding (20%), driveline infection (24%), ischaemic stroke (16%), haemorrhagic stroke (8%), right heart failure (14%), and outflow graft thrombosis (2%). Notably, no haemolysis, pump thrombosis, or pump malfunction events occurred. At 2 years, 47% of patients remained in NYHA class I and 41% in NYHA class II (P <0.0001). From baseline to 2 years, the mean six-minute walk distance increased from 239 m to 347 m (P <0.0001), and the mean EQ-5D quality of life score improved from 48.2 to 70.6 (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Two years post-HeartMate 3 implantation, results show expected and acceptable survival, enhanced haemocompatibility, improved patient functional status and quality of life. This corroborates the success of HeartMate 3 since its first-in-man implantation case in Germany. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02170363.

Two-Year Outcomes with a Magnetically Levitated Cardiac Pump in Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: In an early analysis of this trial, use of a magnetically levitated centrifugal continuous-flow circulatory pump was found to improve clinical outcomes, as compared with a mechanical-bearing axial continuous-flow pump, at 6 months in patients with advanced heart failure. METHODS: In a randomized noninferiority and superiority trial, we compared the centrifugal-flow pump with the axial-flow pump in patients with advanced heart failure, irrespective of the intended goal of support (bridge to transplantation or destination therapy). The composite primary end point was survival at 2 years free of disabling stroke (with disabling stroke indicated by a modified Rankin score of >3; scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating more severe disability) or survival free of reoperation to replace or remove a malfunctioning device. The noninferiority margin for the risk difference (centrifugal-flow pump group minus axial-flow pump group) was -10 percentage points. RESULTS: Of 366 patients, 190 were assigned to the centrifugal-flow pump group and 176 to the axial-flow pump group. In the intention-to-treat population, the primary end point occurred in 151 patients (79.5%) in the centrifugal-flow pump group, as compared with 106 (60.2%) in the axial-flow pump group (absolute difference, 19.2 percentage points; 95% lower confidence boundary, 9.8 percentage points [P<0.001 for noninferiority]; hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31 to 0.69 [P<0.001 for superiority]). Reoperation for pump malfunction was less frequent in the centrifugal-flow pump group than in the axial-flow pump group (3 patients [1.6%] vs. 30 patients [17.0%]; hazard ratio, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.27; P<0.001). The rates of death and disabling stroke were similar in the two groups, but the overall rate of stroke was lower in the centrifugal-flow pump group than in the axial-flow pump group (10.1% vs. 19.2%; hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.84, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced heart failure, a fully magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow pump was superior to a mechanical-bearing axial-flow pump with regard to survival free of disabling stroke or reoperation to replace or remove a malfunctioning device. (Funded by Abbott; MOMENTUM 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02224755 .).

Multicentre clinical trial experience with the HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device: 30-day outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to describe the operative experience and 30-day outcomes of patients implanted with the HeartMate 3 Left Ventricular Assist System (LVAS) during the Conformité Européenne (CE) Mark clinical trial. METHODS: Adult patients met inclusion and exclusion criteria defining advanced-stage heart failure and included the indications of bridge to transplant and destination therapy. Operative parameters, outcomes, adverse events, physical status and quality-of-life parameters were assessed in the first 30 days after LVAS implant. RESULTS: Fifty patients were implanted with the HeartMate 3 at 10 centres in 6 countries. The 30-day survival rate was 98%. The median operative and cardiopulmonary bypass times were 200 (range: 95-585) min and 84 (range: 47-250) min, respectively. Patients required transfusion with packed red blood cells (3.6 ± 2.3 units), fresh frozen plasma (6.5 ± 5 units) and platelets (2 ± 1 units). Six patients (12%) required reoperation for postoperative bleeding and 10 patients (20%) did not require blood transfusion. The median intensive care time was 6 days (range: 1-112 days) and the total hospital stay was 28 days (range: 14-116 days). The most common adverse events were bleeding (15, 30%), arrhythmia (14, 28%) and infection (10, 20%). There were 2 (4%) strokes. CONCLUSIONS: The 30-day outcomes following implantation of the HeartMate 3 demonstrates excellent survival with low adverse event rates. The LVAD performed as intended with no haemolysis or device failure. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02170363. HeartMate 3™ CE Mark Clinical Investigation Plan (HM3 CE Mark).

Evaluation of XIENCE V everolimus-eluting and Taxus Express2 paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents in patients with jailed side branches from the SPIRIT IV trial at 2 years.

The aim of this study was to determine whether patients 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) IV trial who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, who had target lesions with jailed side branches, had improved clinical outcomes when treated with the XIENCE V versus Taxus Express(2) drug-eluting stent. In the SPIRIT III randomized trial, patients with target lesions with jailed side branches after XIENCE V compared with Taxus Express(2) implantation had lower 2-year rates of major adverse cardiac events. The SPIRIT IV trial represents a larger more diverse patient population compared with SPIRIT III. In the large-scale, prospective, multicenter, randomized SPIRIT IV trial, 3,687 patients who underwent coronary stenting with up to 3 de novo native coronary artery lesions were randomized 2:1 to receive XIENCE V versus Taxus Express(2) stents. Two-year clinical outcomes of patients with or without jailed side branches after stenting were compared. A jailed side branch was defined as any side branch >1.0 mm in diameter within the target segment being stented, excluding bifurcations deemed to require treatment. Of the 3,687 patients in SPIRIT IV, a total of 1,426 had side branches that were jailed during angioplasty of the target lesion. Patients with jailed side branches after XIENCE V compared with Taxus Express(2) implantation had significantly lower 2-year rates of target lesion failure (6.5% vs 11.9%, p = 0.001), major adverse cardiac events (6.6% vs 12.2%, p = 0.0008), ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (4.1% vs 7.9%, p = 0.004), and stent thrombosis (0.6% vs 2.8%, p = 0.001). In conclusion, patients with jailed side branches after stenting with XIENCE V compared to Taxus Express(2) devices had superior clinical outcomes at 2 years in the large-scale randomized SPIRIT IV trial.

Impact of routine angiographic follow-up after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents in the SPIRIT III randomized trial at three years.

Routine angiographic follow-up after bare-metal stent implantation has been associated with an increase in coronary revascularization. The impact of angiographic follow-up after drug-eluting stent placement remains poorly characterized. The prospective, randomized, single-blinded SPIRIT III trial assigned patients to the everolimus-eluting stent or the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES). Major adverse cardiovascular events (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization [ID-TLR]) at 3 years were assessed by angiographic versus clinical-only follow-up at 8 months ± 28 days and a landmark survival analysis from 9 months to 3 years. Of 1,002 patients, 564 patients were assigned to angiographic follow-up at 8 months ± 28 days and 438 patients underwent clinical follow-up alone. Three-year major adverse cardiovascular event rates were 10.6% in the angiographic group and 12.0% in the clinical follow-up group (p = 0.64). Ischemia-driven revascularization increased twofold at 9 months, but no difference was noted in ID-TLR for either device. Non-ID-TLR was significantly higher in patients in the angiographic group (4.5% vs 1.0%, p = 0.002), a difference resulting from PES (9.1% vs 0.7%, p = 0.0007) rather than everolimus-eluting stent (2.2% vs 1.1%, p = 0.36) treatment. The landmark analysis showed no significant differences between the angiographic and clinical follow-up groups from 9 months to 3 years of major clinical outcomes. In conclusion, routine angiographic follow-up in SPIRIT III did not increase rates of ID-TLR compared to clinical follow-up alone. Despite higher nonischemia-driven revascularization rates with angiographic follow-up of patients with PESs, none of the safety end points were adversely affected.

Performance of everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents in small vessels: results from the SPIRIT III and SPIRIT IV clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Higher rates of adverse cardiac events have been observed in patients with small vessel disease. Therefore, we compared an everolimus-eluting stent (EES) to a paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) for treatment of small (reference vessel diameter: RVD <2.5 mm) and larger vessels (≥2.5 mm) in a pooled analysis from the SPIRIT III (n = 1,002) and SPIRIT IV (n = 3,687) trials (randomized 2:1, EES vs. PES). METHODS: Data of 4,689 total patients were pooled for a patient level analysis. Lesion length, RVD, and percent diabetics were matched between stent types. EES versus PES performance was evaluated at 1 year in patients with small (n = 1,019) and larger vessels (n = 2,586) who had a single lesion treated. RESULTS: Mean RVD assessed by quantitative coronary angiography in patients with small vessels was 2.24 ± 0.19 and 2.25 ± 0.20 mm in the EES and PES groups, respectively. At 1 year, EES compared to PES in small vessel patients significantly reduced major adverse cardiac events (4.5% vs. 7.9%, P = 0.04), target lesion failure (4.4% vs. 7.9%, P = 0.03), target lesion revascularization (2.4% vs. 5.5%, P = 0.02), and stent thrombosis (0.2% vs. 1.2%, P = 0.04). Relative benefits of EES versus PES were comparable in small and larger vessels (P interaction > 0.05), although the absolute benefits were greater in patients with small vessel disease. CONCLUSION: In high-risk patients requiring percutaneous coronary intervention in small coronary arteries, EES results in significantly improved 1-year rates of event-free survival compared to PES, with evidence present for both enhanced safety and efficacy.

Clinical follow-up 3 years after everolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents: a pooled analysis from the SPIRIT II (A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) and SPIRIT III (A Clinical Evaluation of the Investigational Device XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [EECSS] in the Treatment of Subjects With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) randomized trials.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate long-term 3-year clinical outcomes of an everolimus-eluting stent (EES) versus a paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES). BACKGROUND: Compared with PES, EES reduced target vessel failure and major adverse cardiac events at 2 years. Whether the benefits of EES are sustained at 3 years has not been reported. METHODS: In the SPIRIT II (A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) and SPIRIT III (A Clinical Evaluation of the Investigational Device XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [EECSS] in the Treatment of Subjects With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) trials, 1,302 patients were randomly assigned to EES (n = 892) or PES (n = 410). We report the 3-year clinical follow-up of this patient-level pooled analysis. RESULTS: At 3 years, EES compared with PES resulted in a significant reduction in myocardial infarction (3.8% vs. 6.7%; relative risk [RR]: 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34 to 0.94; p = 0.04), and target lesion revascularization (6.8% vs. 12.7%; RR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.77; p = 0.001). Everolimus-eluting stents resulted in a significant reduction in target vessel failure (13.7% vs. 19.5%; RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.92; p = 0.01), and major adverse cardiac events (9.1% vs. 16.3%; RR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.76; p = 0.0004). The cumulative rates of Academic Research Consortium-defined definite or probable stent thrombosis were 1.2% in EES patients and 1.9% in PES patients (RR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.68; p = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: In this patient-level pooled analysis, EES compared with PES resulted in a significant and persistent reduction in target vessel failure and major adverse cardiac events at 3 years due to fewer myocardial infarction and ischemic target lesion revascularization events, which is consistent with superior safety and efficacy of the EES platform.

Comparison of everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents in patients undergoing multilesion and multivessel intervention: the SPIRIT III (A Clinical Evaluation of the Investigational Device XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [EECSS] in the Treatment of Subjects With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) and SPIRIT IV (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) randomized trials.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated outcomes following XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stent (EES) compared with the Taxus Express(2) paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in patients undergoing multilesion and multivessel intervention. BACKGROUND: The optimal revascularization strategy for patients with multivessel disease is unknown. METHODS: The SPIRIT III (A Clinical Evaluation of the Investigational Device XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [EECSS] in the Treatment of Subjects With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) (n = 1,002) and SPIRIT IV (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) (n = 3,690) trials enrolled patients with de novo lesions ≤ 28 mm in length and reference vessel diameter of 2.5 to 3.75 mm. The SPIRIT III trial enrolled patients with a single lesion in 1 or 2 coronary arteries, and the SPIRIT IV trial enrolled patients with up to 2 lesions in 3 different vessels (maximum 2 lesions per vessel). In both trials, patients were randomized 2:1 to EES vs. PES. Clinical outcomes to 1 year were analyzed in patients with single (n = 3,823) versus multiple (n = 765) treated vessels, and in those with single (n = 3,536) versus multiple (n = 1,052) treated lesions. RESULTS: Among patients with multivessel disease, EES compared with PES resulted in reduced rates of target vessel myocardial infarction (2.2% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.007) and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (4.2% vs. 8.0%, p = 0.04). Among patients undergoing multilesion stenting, EES compared with PES resulted in reduced rates of target vessel myocardial infarction (2.1% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.008) and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (3.7% vs. 7.4%, p = 0.01). The absolute benefits of EES versus PES in patients undergoing multivessel or multilesion intervention were greater than in those undergoing single-lesion, single-vessel intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The EES compared with PES provided significant improvements in clinical safety and efficacy outcomes. The absolute benefit provided by EES versus PES appears to be proportional to the complexity of coronary disease.

Recent progress in percutaneous coronary intervention: evolution of the drug-eluting stents, focus on the XIENCE V drug-eluting stent.

Although originally the practice of using balloon catheters proved successful in the short term, the long-term prognosis was less promising because of restenosis, which occurred in >or=30% of patients. This prompted the development of new techniques and mechanical adjuncts, or stents, to maintain lumen patency after balloon angioplasty. Bare metal stents (BMS), the first type of stent used in percutaneous coronary intervention, were designed to address the issues met by balloon angioplasty. BMS reduced the angiographic and clinical restenosis rates in de novo lesions compared to percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty alone and decreased the need for emergency coronary artery bypass graft surgery. BMS substantially reduced the incidence of abrupt artery closure, but restenosis still occurred after 6 months in about 20% of cases, necessitating repeat procedures. Drug-eluting stents (DES) improved on the principle of BMS by also delivering drugs locally to inhibit neointimal hyperplasia. DES greatly reduced the incidence of restenosis and resulted in a better safety profile as compared to radiation or systemic drug administration. These advantages and a lower cost compared to surgical interventions make DES an attractive option to treat coronary artery disease. Currently, five DES are available in the USA: the CYPHER sirolimus-eluting stent from Cordis (approved by FDA on 24 April 2003), the TAXUS Express(2) and Liberté paclitaxel-eluting stents from Boston Scientific (approved by FDA on 4 March 2004 and 10 October 2008, respectively) (hereafter TAXUS Express is referred to as TAXUS), the ENDEAVOR zotarolimus-eluting stent from Medtronic (approved by FDA on 1 February 2008), and the XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stent from Abbott Vascular (approved by FDA on 2 July 2008). Following the approval of CYPHER and TAXUS, the clinical data suggested a potential small increase in the rate of stent thrombosis (ST) in DES compared with BMS after implantation. To determine the differences in ST and other rare events between different stents, some modifications have been made to DES clinical trial design, and postmarket surveillance programs have been included to further evaluate the safety and efficacy of each DES. In this review, we will discuss the key clinical outcomes of DES clinical trials, design and key features of the current coronary stents, and major clinical development programs. Postmarket trials, designed to establish long-term safety around ST and other rare clinical events, are also discussed. The future of DES design technologies will also be outlined.