CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Other Relevant Articles

Abstract

Recommended Article

Future of Personalized Cardiovascular Medicine Major trials in coronary intervention from 2018 Association of Coronary Anatomical Complexity With Clinical Outcomes After Percutaneous or Surgical Revascularization in the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment Reporting and Tracking Program The Prognostic Value of Exercise Echocardiography After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Guiding Principles for Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Novel functions of macrophages in the heart: insights into electrical conduction, stress, and diastolic dysfunction Post-Stroke Cardiovascular Complications and Neurogenic Cardiac Injury: JACC State-of-the-Art Review Prospective Elimination of Distal Coronary Sinus to Left Atrial Connection for Atrial Fibrillation Ablation (PRECAF) Randomized Controlled Trial
|<<... 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 ...>>|

Clinical TrialMarch 2020 Vol 13, Issue 3

JOURNAL：Circulation. Article Link

Randomized Comparison of Everolimus- and Zotarolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents With Biolimus-Eluting Stents in All-Comer Patients

YJ Youn, J-W Lee, J Yoon et al.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND - There is limited data comparing the Xience everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and the Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) with the BioMatrix biolimus-eluting stent (BES).


METHODS - This open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial enrolled all-comer patients to be randomly treated with either BES, EES, or ZES in a 1:1:1 ratio in 15 centers across South Korea. The primary end point was a device-oriented composite outcome consisting of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization at 24 months. The BES was compared with the EES and the ZES by intention-to-treat analyses with a noninferiority margin of 3.8%, respectively.


RESULTS - Because of slow recruitment and low event rates, this trial was prematurely terminated after enrollment of 1935 (75%) of the intended 2580 patients. Of the 1911 patients randomized to either EES (n=638), BES (n=634), or ZES (n =639), the rate of device-oriented composite outcome was 3.6%, 2.2%, and 3.9%, respectively, at 24 months (BES versus EES: absolute risk difference −1.4% [upper limit of 1-sided 95% CI: −3.2%]; Pfor noninferiority <0.001; BES versus ZES: absolute risk difference −1.7% [upper limit of 1-sided 95% CI: −3.6%]; Pfor noninferiority <0.001).


CONCLUSIONS - The BES was noninferior to either the EES or the ZES in all-comer patients for device-oriented composite outcome at the 24-month follow-up. However, caution is advised regarding interpretation of these results due to the premature termination of this study.


REGISTRATION - URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01397175.

>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 REGISTRATION

> CBS 2019 PROGRAM

> CBS 2019 CALL FOR SCIENCE

> CBS 2019 SPOTLIGHTS

 CBSMD

> CBSMD WEBSITE REGISTRATION

> EDUCATION CENTER

> RECOMMANDED PAPER

> TOP 10 RESEARCH PAPER

> PRE-READING

CBS 2019 CBS 2019 FACULTY Education Resource CBSMD Scientific Library
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top