Comparison of zotarolimus-eluting stents with sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents for coronary revascularization: the ZEST (comparison of the efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting stent with sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stent for coronary lesions) randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) in comparison with the established and widely used sirolimus- (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in routine clinical practice. BACKGROUND: Whether ZES might provide similar clinical and angiographic outcomes in a broad spectrum of patients compared with SES or PES is undetermined. METHODS: We performed a single-blind, multicenter, prospectively randomized trial to compare ZES with SES and PES in 2,645 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary end point was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (death, myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization) at 12 months. A noninferiority comparison (ZES vs. SES) and a superiority comparison (ZES vs. PES) were performed for the primary end point. RESULTS: Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar in the 3 groups. At 12 months, the ZES group showed noninferior rates of MACE compared with the SES group (10.2% vs. 8.3%, p for noninferiority = 0.01, p for superiority = 0.17) and significantly fewer MACE than the PES group (10.2% vs. 14.1%, p for superiority = 0.01). The incidence of death or myocardial infarction was similar among the groups (ZES vs. SES vs. PES, 5.8% vs. 6.9% vs. 7.6%, respectively, p = 0.31). The incidence of stent thrombosis was significantly lower in the SES group (ZES vs. SES vs. PES, 0.7% vs. 0% vs. 0.8%, respectively, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In this large-scale, practical randomized trial, the use of ZES resulted in similar rates of MACE compared with SES and in fewer MACE compared with PES at 12 months. (Comparison of the Efficacy and the Safety of Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Sirolimus-Eluting Stent and PacliTaxel-Eluting Stent for Coronary Lesions; NCT00418067).

Paclitaxel- versus sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: with analyses for diabetic and nondiabetic subpopulation.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine which drug-eluting stent (DES) is preferable for the treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and to elucidate the impact of diabetes mellitus on the outcome of each DES. BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown the benefit of DES in patients with STEMI. Diabetes mellitus might differentially affect outcomes of each DES. METHODS: We analyzed the large-scale, prospective, observational KAMIR (Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry) study, which enrolled 4,416 STEMI patients (26% with diabetes) treated with paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) or sirolimus-eluting stent (SES). Primary outcome was major adverse cardiac event (MACE), defined as a composite of mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (TLR). RESULTS: In the overall population, the MACE rate at 1 year was significantly higher in the PES than the SES group (11.6% vs. 8.6%, p = 0.014), which was mainly due to increased TLR (3.7% vs. 1.8%, p < 0.001). In the diabetic subgroup, however, the MACE rate was not significantly different between PES and SES (14.5% vs. 12.3%, p = 0.217), in contrast to the nondiabetic subgroup, where PES was inferior to SES as in the overall population. Matching by propensity-score did not significantly alter these results. For TLR, there was interaction between the type of stents and diabetes mellitus (unadjusted: p = 0.052; after propensity-score matching: p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: The PES was inferior to the SES in the overall population, with regard to the occurrence of MACE and TLR. However, subgroup analysis for diabetic subjects showed no differences in clinical outcomes between PES and SES. These results suggest that diabetes differentially affects the outcome of first-generation DES.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-, sirolimus-, and paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

Drug-eluting stents (DESs) are increasingly used for treatment of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), but there are few comparisons of outcomes of various types of DES. We compared the efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZESs), sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs), and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) in primary intervention for STEMI. This multicenter, prospectively randomized ZEST-AMI trial included 328 patients at 12 medical centers who were randomly assigned to ZES (n = 108), SES (n = 110), or PES (n = 110) deployment. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (death, MI, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization) at 12 months. Secondary end points included the individual components of the primary end point, late loss, angiographic restenosis, and stent thrombosis. Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were well matched. In-segment late loss (0.28 +/- 0.42 vs 0.46 +/- 0.48 vs 0.47 +/- 0.50 mm, respectively, p = 0.029) and restenosis rate (2.7% vs 15.9% vs 12.3%, respectively, p = 0.027) at 8 months were lowest in the SES group compared to the ZES and PES groups. At 12 months, cumulative incidence rates of primary end points in the ZES, SES, and PES groups were 11.3%, 8.2%, and 8.2%, respectively (p = 0.834). There were 2 acute (in the SES group) and 5 subacute (2 in the SES group and 3 in the PES group) stent thromboses. Incidence of death, recurrent MI, or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization did not differ among the 3 groups. In conclusion, despite the difference in restenosis rate, the efficacy and safety of the 3 different DESs showed similar, acceptable results in the treatment of STEMI.