A randomized, controlled, multi-center trial comparing the safety and efficacy of zotarolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in de novo lesions in coronary arteries: final results of the ZoMaxx II trial.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this prospective, randomized, single-blind controlled clinical trial was to compare the effectiveness of a zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZoMaxx™) with a paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent (Taxus™ Express(2)™) in patients with angina pectoris and a single native coronary artery lesion between 10-28 mm in length and 2.5-3.75mm in diameter. METHODS: Patients were enrolled at 75 international institutions between June 2005 and November 2006. RESULTS: 1099 (1672 originally planned) patients received 557 ZoMaxx and 542 Taxus stents: cohorts were well-matched for diabetes (27% vs. 27%), reference vessel diameter (2.73 ± 0.46mm vs. 2.74 ± 0.45mm) and lesion length (14.8 ± 6.7mm vs. 14.3 ± 6.4mm). Nine month clinical and angiographic follow-up was available in 1052/1099 (96%) and 649/836 (78%) patients, respectively. The safety profiles for the two stents (myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death and/or target vessel revascularization (TVR)) were similar (ZoMaxx 8.7% vs. Taxus 6.9%, p=NS). The primary endpoint of 9-month TVR occurred more frequently after treatment with ZoMaxx (6.8%) as compared with Taxus (4.2%), therefore the primary clinical endpoint was not met. However, the 9-month in-segment late lumen loss for ZoMaxx (0.29 ± 0.47mm) and Taxus (0.22 ± 0.41mm, p=NS) were similar, thus satisfying the primary angiographic endpoint. Secondary endpoints of the rates of in-segment and in-stent binary restenosis were also similar (5.9% vs. 5.8%, 7.8% vs. 7.9%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: At 9months, the ZoMaxx stent failed to achieve the primary endpoint of non-inferiority in TVR to the Taxus stent, but safety endpoints were equal between the two stent systems.

A randomized comparison of the Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent versus the TAXUS paclitaxel-eluting stent in de novo native coronary lesions 12-month outcomes from the ENDEAVOR IV trial.

OBJECTIVES: The ENDEAVOR IV (Randomized Comparison of Zotarolimus-Eluting and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease) trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of the zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) compared with the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES). BACKGROUND: First-generation drug-eluting stents have reduced angiographic and clinical restenosis, but long-term safety remains controversial. A second-generation drug-eluting stent, which delivers zotarolimus, a potent antiproliferative agent, via a biocompatible phosphorylcholine polymer on a cobalt alloy thin-strut stent has shown promising experimental and early clinical results. METHODS: This is a prospective, randomized (1:1), single-blind, controlled trial comparing outcomes of patients with single de novo coronary lesions treated with ZES or PES. The primary end point was noninferiority of 9-month target vessel failure defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: Among a total of 1,548 patients assigned to ZES (n = 773) or PES (n = 775), at 9 months, ZES was noninferior to PES with rates of target vessel failure 6.6% versus 7.1%, respectively (p(noninferiority) < or = 0.001). There were fewer periprocedural myocardial infarctions with ZES (0.5% vs. 2.2%; p = 0.007), whereas at 12 months, there were no significant differences between groups in rates of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, or stent thrombosis. Although incidence of 8-month binary angiographic in-segment restenosis was higher in patients treated with ZES versus PES (15.3% vs. 10.4%; p = 0.284), rates of 12-month target lesion revascularization were similar (4.5% vs. 3.2%; p = 0.228), especially in patients without planned angiographic follow-up (3.6% vs. 3.2%; p = 0.756). CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate that ZES has similar clinical safety and efficacy compared with PES in simple and medium complexity single de novo coronary lesions. (ENDEAVOR IV Clinical Trial; NCT00217269).

Late safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of a zotarolimus-eluting stent compared with a paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with de novo coronary lesions: 2-year follow-up from the ENDEAVOR IV trial (Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Medtronic Endeavor Drug [ABT-578] Eluting Coronary Stent System Versus the Taxus Paclitaxel-Eluting Coronary Stent System in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions).

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess, after 2 years of follow-up, the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of a zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) compared with a paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in patients with native coronary lesions. BACKGROUND: Early drug-eluting stents were associated with a small but significant incidence of very late stent thrombosis (VLST), occurring >1 year after the index procedure. The ZES has shown encouraging results in clinical trials. METHODS: The ENDEAVOR IV trial (Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Medtronic Endeavor Drug [ABT-578] Eluting Coronary Stent System Versus the Taxus Paclitaxel-Eluting Coronary Stent System in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions), a randomized (1:1), single-blind, controlled trial (n = 1,548) compared ZES versus PES in patients with single de novo coronary lesions. Two-year follow-up was obtained in 96.0% of ZES and 95.4% of PES patients. The primary end point was target vessel failure (TVF), and safety end points included Academic Research Consortium-defined stent thrombosis. Economic end points analyzed included quality-adjusted survival, medical costs, and relative cost-effectiveness of ZES and PES. RESULTS: The TVF at 2 years was similar in ZES and PES patients (11.1% vs. 13.1%, p = 0.232). There were fewer myocardial infarctions (MIs) in ZES patients (p = 0.022), due to fewer periprocedural non-Q-wave MIs and fewer late MIs between 1 and 2 years. Late MIs were associated with increased VLST (PES: 6 vs. ZES: 1; p = 0.069). Target lesion revascularization was similar comparing ZES with PES (5.9% vs. 4.6%; p = 0.295), especially in patients without planned angiographic follow-up (5.2% vs. 4.9%; p = 0.896). The cost-effectiveness of ZES and PES was similar. CONCLUSIONS: After 2 years of follow-up, ZES demonstrated efficacy and cost-effectiveness comparable to PES, with fewer MIs and a trend toward less VLST. (The ENDEAVOR IV Clinical Trial: A Trial of a Coronary Stent System in Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT00217269).