• Lancet · Jan 2016

    Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study

    Clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with everolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents (EXAMINATION): 5-year results of a randomised trial.

    • Manel Sabaté, Salvatore Brugaletta, Angel Cequier, Andrés Iñiguez, Antonio Serra, Pilar Jiménez-Quevedo, Vicente Mainar, Gianluca Campo, Maurizio Tespili, Peter den Heijer, Armando Bethencourt, Nicolás Vazquez, Gerrit Anne van Es, Bianca Backx, Marco Valgimigli, and Patrick W Serruys.
    • University Hospital Clínic, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain. Electronic address: masabate@clinic.ub.es.
    • Lancet. 2016 Jan 23;387(10016):357-66.

    BackgroundData for the safety and efficacy of new-generation drug-eluting stents at long-term follow-up, and specifically in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, are scarce. In the EXAMINATION trial, we compared everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with bare-metal stents (BMS) in an all-comer population with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. In this study, we assessed the 5-year outcomes of the population in the EXAMINATION trial.MethodsIn the multicentre EXAMINATION trial, done in Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands, patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive EES or BMS. The random allocation schedule was computer-generated and central randomisation (by telephone) was used to allocate patients in blocks of four or six, stratified by centre. Patients were masked to treatment assignment. At 5 years, we assessed the combined patient-oriented outcome of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00828087.Findings1498 patients were randomly assigned to receive either EES (n=751) or BMS (n=747). At 5 years, complete clinical follow-up data were obtained for 731 patients treated with EES and 727 treated with BMS (97% of both groups). The patient-oriented endpoint occurred in 159 (21%) patients in the EES group versus 192 (26%) in the BMS group (hazard ratio 0·80, 95% CI 0·65-0·98; p=0·033). This difference was mainly driven by a reduced rate of all-cause mortality (65 [9%] vs 88 [12%]; 0·72, 0·52-0·10; p=0·047).InterpretationOur findings should be taken as a point of reference for the assessment of new bioresorbable polymer-based metallic stents or bioresorbable scaffolds in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.FundingSpanish Heart Foundation.Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…