Impact of lesion length and vessel size on clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with everolimus- versus paclitaxel-eluting stents pooled analysis from the SPIRIT (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System) and COMPARE (Second-generation everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-life practice) Randomized Trials.

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of reference vessel diameter (RVD) and lesion length (LL) on the relative safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). BACKGROUND Lesion length and RVD are well-known predictors of adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS Patient-level data were pooled from the randomized SPIRIT (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System) II, III, IV and COMPARE (Second-generation everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-life practice) trials. Quantitative angiographic core laboratory data were available for 6,183 patients randomized to EES (n = 3,944) or PES (n = 2,239). Long lesions and small vessels were defined as LL >median (13.4 mm) and RVD ≤median (2.65 mm), respectively. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (consisting of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) were assessed at 2 years, according to stent type in 3 groups: short lesions in large vessels (group A, n = 1,297); long lesions or small vessels but not both (group B, n = 2,981); and long lesions in small vessels (group C, n = 1,905). RESULTS The pooled 2-year MACE rates were 5.6%, 8.2%, and 10.4% in Groups A, B, and C, respectively (p < 0.0001). There was no significant interaction between lesion group and stent type (p = 0.64), indicating lower MACE with EES compared with PES regardless of LL and RVD. However, the absolute difference was largest in Groups B and C. In Group A, 2-year MACE rates were not significantly different between EES and PES (4.8% vs. 7.0%, respectively, p = 0.11). In contrast, EES was associated with lower 2-year rates of MACE in Group B (6.6% vs. 11.2%, p < 0.01) and in Group C (9.1% vs. 12.7%, p = 0.008) as well as lower rates of myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis. Multivariable analysis confirmed EES versus PES as an independent predictor of freedom from MACE in Groups B and C. CONCLUSIONS Patients with short lesions in large vessels have low rates of MACE at 2 years after treatment with either EES or PES. In higher-risk patients with long lesions and/or small vessels, EES results in significant improvements in both clinical safety and efficacy outcomes. (A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions; 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; 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; NCT00307047; A Randomized Controlled Trial of Everolimus-eluting Stents and Paclitaxel-eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice: The COMPARE Trial; NCT01016041).