Randomized Comparison of Everolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents

Objectives We sought to determine whether the differences in outcomes present between everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in the SPIRIT (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System) IV trial at 1 year were sustained with longer-term follow-up. Background In the SPIRIT IV trial, patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention who were randomized to EES compared with PES experienced lower 1-year rates of target lesion failure (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization [TLR]), with significant reductions in the individual rates of MI, TLR, and stent thrombosis. Methods We prospectively randomized 3,687 patients with up to 3 noncomplex previously untreated native coronary artery lesions to EES versus PES at 66 U. S. sites. Follow-up through 2 years is complete in 3,578 patents (97.0%). Results Treatment with EES compared with PES reduced the 2-year rates of TLF (6.9% vs. 9.9%, p = 0.003), all MI (2.5% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.02), Q-wave MI (0.1% vs. 0.8%, p = 0.002), stent thrombosis (0.4% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.008), and ischemia-driven TLR (4.5% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.004), with nonsignificantly different rates of all-cause and cardiac mortality. Between 1 year and 2 years, there were no significant differences in adverse event rates between the 2 stent types. Conclusions In the large-scale, prospective, multicenter, randomized SPIRIT IV trial, the benefits of EES compared with those of PES present at 1 year were sustained at 2 years. (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System; NCT01016041) (J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58:19-25) (C) 2011 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation