Comparison of 3-year clinical outcomes between Endeavor Resolute® and Resolute Integrity® zotarolimus-eluting stents in an Asian population

• Main Authors: Yong Hoon Kim, Ae-young Her, Seung-woon Rha, Byoung Geol Choi, Se Yeon Choi, Jae Kyeong Byun, Yoonjee Park, Dong Oh Kang, Won Young Jang, Woohyeun Kim, Cheol Ung Choi, Hong Seog Seo
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: KARE Publishing 2020-04-01
• Series: Anatolian Journal of Cardiology
• Subjects: zotarolimus; drug-eluting stent; outcomes
• Online Access: https://jag.journalagent.com/z4/download_fulltext.asp?pdir=anatoljcardiol&un=AJC-80845

Objective: There is a scarcity of comparative studies between Endeavor Resolute®-zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) and Resolute Integrity®-ZES (I-ZES) during long-term follow-up periods. Although the stent alloy and the polymer of these two ZESs are similar, the platform and the design of these two stents are different. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of these two different ZESs in the all-comer Korean patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during a 3-year follow-up period. Methods: This study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. In this single-center, retrospective, and all-comer patients' cohort study, a total of 889 patients who underwent PCI with R-ZES (n=394) or I-ZES (n=495) were enrolled. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) defined as all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), any repeat revascularization including target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and non-TVR, and the secondary endpoint was stent thrombosis (ST) at 3 years. Results: To adjust for any potential confounders, the propensity score-adjusted multivariable analysis was performed using the logistic regression model (C-statistics=0.689). The cumulative incidence rates of MACEs [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 1.341; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.615–2.922; p=0.461], all-cause death, nonfatal MI, any repeat revascularization, and ST (aHR, 2.090; 95% CI, 0.163–26.77; p=0.571) were similar between the two groups during the 3-year follow-up period. Conclusion: R-ZES and I-ZES demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety after PCI during a 3-year follow-up period. However, these results can perhaps be more precisely defined by other large and long-term follow-up studies in the future. (Anatol J Cardiol 2020; 23: 268-76)