• Martin B Leon, Laura Mauri, Jeffrey J Popma, Donald E Cutlip, Eugenia Nikolsky, Charles O'Shaughnessy, Paul A Overlie, Brent T McLaurin, Stuart L Solomon, John S Douglas, Michael W Ball, Ronald P Caputo, Ash Jain, Thaddeus R Tolleson, Bernard M Reen, Ajay J Kirtane, Peter J Fitzgerald, Kweli Thompson, David E Kandzari, and ENDEAVOR IV Investigators.
• Columbia University Medical Center and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, New York, USA. mleon@crf.org
• J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2010 Feb 9; 55 (6): 543-54.

ObjectivesThe 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).BackgroundFirst-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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsAmong 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).ConclusionsThese 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).Copyright 2010 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

17 keywords...

hide…