Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

A randomised comparison of an everolimus-eluting coronary stent with a paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent:the SPIRIT II trial.

EuroIntervention 2006 November
BACKGROUND: Everolimus has been successfully tested in humans using both an erodable and a durable polymer in small previous studies.

METHODS: This single blind multi-centre non-inferiority randomised (3:1) controlled trial evaluated the safety and performance of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System (XIENCE V EECSS) versus the TAXUS Paclitaxel Eluting Coronary Stent System (TAXUS(R) PECSS) in the treatment of patients with a maximum of two de novo native coronary artery lesions located in two different epicardial vessels. Three hundred patients with evidence of myocardial ischaemia were allocated to stent implantation with an everolimus-eluting stent (n=223) or a paclitaxel-eluting stent (n=77). Suitable lesions had a diameter stenosis of <50-99%, a length of <28 mm, and a reference vessel diameter between 2.5 mm and 4.25 mm. The primary endpoint was in-stent late loss (LL) at 180 days. Percentage in-stent volume obstruction (%VO) was measured by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in a subset of 152 patients. Clinical secondary endpoints included ischaemia driven major adverse cardiac events (ID-MACE) at 180 days.

RESULTS: At 6 months, the in-stent LL was 0.11+/-0.27 mm in the everolimus-eluting stent arm, as compared to 0.36+/-0.39 mm in the paclitaxel-eluting stent arm (p<0.0001). Percentage VO in the everolimus-eluting stent arm was 2.5+/-4.7% versus 7.4+/-7.0% in the paclitaxel-eluting stent arm (p<0.0001). Hierarchical MACE was 2.7% (6/222) in the everolimus-eluting stent arm vs. 6.5% (5/77) in the paclitaxel-eluting stent arm.

CONCLUSION: This non-inferiority randomised trial not only met its primary endpoint, but also demonstrated the superiority of the everolimus-eluting stent over the paclitaxel-eluting stent in terms of in-stent late loss.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app