Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Second-Generation Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents in United States Contemporary Practice (REWARDS TLX Trial)
Registry Experience at the Washington Hospital Center, DES - Taxus Liberte Versus Xience V (REWARDS TLX) is a physician-initiated, retrospective, real-world, multicenter, observational study for all patients >18 years of age subjected to percutaneous coronary intervention with everolimus-eluting stents (EESs) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs). Outcomes of patients receiving a TAXUS Liberté or XIENCE V drug-eluting stent were compared. Baseline clinical, procedural, and follow-up data at 12 months were collected from 10 clinical centers by an electronic data capture system. The study's primary end point was major adverse cardiac events: a composite of all-cause death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis. The trial is registered with http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01134159). Data were entered for 1,195 patients (PES, n = 595; EES, n = 600). Baseline clinical characteristics were similar except for higher dyslipidemia, systemic hypertension, and family history of coronary artery disease in the EES group. In-hospital outcome was similar between groups, with an overall in-hospital stent thrombosis rate of 0.2%. The primary end point at 12 months was similar (EES 7.8% vs 10.8%, p = 0.082). Overall stent thrombosis rate was lower in the EES group (0.3% vs 1.2%, respectively, p = 0.107); however, target lesion revascularization was similar (PES, hazard ratio 1.46, 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 2.19, p = 0.064). There was no difference in overall mortality between groups. In conclusion, second-generation EESs and PESs demonstrated similar efficacy and safety profiles for broadened patient and lesion subsets compared to a selected population from the pivotal trials. However, for composite efficacy and safety end points, EESs outperformed second-generation PESs.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.