Comparison of Everolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Patients With Acute and Stable Coronary Syndromes Pooled Results From the SPIRIT (A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System) and COMPARE (A Trial of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice) Trials

Objectives This study sought to compare the clinical outcomes of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and stable coronary artery disease (CAD). Background Although randomized trials have shown superiority of EES to PES, the safety and efficacy of EES in ACS is unknown. Methods We performed a patient-level pooled analysis from the prospective, randomized SPIRIT (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System) II, III, IV, and COMPARE (A Trial of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice) trials in which 2,381 patients with ACS and 4,404 patients with stable CAD were randomized to EES or to PES. Kaplan-Meier estimates of death, myocardial infarction (MI), ischennia-driven target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis were assessed at 2 years and stratified by clinical presentation (ACS vs. stable CAD). Results At 2 years, patients with ACS compared with stable CAD had higher rates of death (3.2% vs. 2.4%, hazard ratio [HR]: 1.37 [95% confidence interval (Cl): 1.02 to 1.85], p = 0.04) and MI (4.9% vs. 3.4%, HR: 1.45 [95% Cl: 1.14 to 1.85], p = 0.02). In patients with ACS, EES versus PES reduced the rate of death or MI (6.6% vs. 9.3%, HR: 0.70 [95% Cl: 0.52 to 0.94], p = 0.02), stent thrombosis (0.7% vs. 2.9%, HR: 0.25 [95% Cl: 0.12 to 0.52], p = 0.0002), and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (4.7% vs. 6.2%, HR: 0.69 [95% Cl: 0.48 to 0.99], p = 0.04). In patients with stable CAD, EES reduced the rate of death or MI (4.5% vs. 7.1%, HR: 0.62 [95% Cl: 0.48 to 0.80], p = 0.0002), stent thrombosis (0.7% vs. 1.8%, HR: 0.34 [95% Cl: 0.19 to 0.62], p = 0.0002), and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (3.9% vs. 6.9%, HR: 0.55 [95% Cl: 0.42 to 0.73], p <0.0001). Conclusions Treatment with EES versus PES provides enhanced safety and efficacy regardless of the acuity of the clinical syndrome being treated and appears to mitigate the increased risk of stent thrombosis associated with ACS. (A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions [SPIRIT II]; NCT00180310; SPIRIT III: A Clinical Evaluation of the Investigational Device XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [EECSS] in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions [SPIRIT III]; NCT00180479; SPIRIT IV Clinical Trial: Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions [SPIRIT IV]; NCT00307047; A Trial of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice: the COMPARE Trial [COMPARE]; NCT01016041) (J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2011;4:1104-15) (C) 2011 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation