Safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents versus sirolimus-eluting stents in women.

The American journal of cardiology

PubMedID: 23040594

Badr S, Barbash IM, Dvir D, Torguson R, Xue Z, Kitabata H, Sardi G, Loh JP, Pichard AD, Waksman R. Safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents versus sirolimus-eluting stents in women. Am J Cardiol. 2013;111(1):21-5.
Drug-eluting stents have shown promising clinical results in the treatment of coronary artery disease, including in women. Studies with first-generation drug-eluting stents, however, have reported higher rates of stent thrombosis (ST). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of second-generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) versus first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in women. The study included 1,649 women; 1,152 (70%) received SES and 497 (30%) received EES. In-hospital and 1-, 6-, and 12-month clinical outcomes were analyzed and compared. Correlates of major adverse cardiac events and ST were identified. Baseline clinical characteristics were similar between stent types, although more peripheral vascular disease and family history of coronary artery disease were seen in the SES group, while more unstable angina pectoris at initial diagnosis was more prevalent in the EES group. The EES group had more type C and distal lesions. There was a higher rate of target vessel revascularization and major adverse cardiac events in the SES group (14.7% vs 10.8%, p = 0.04) at 1 year. ST tended to be higher in the SES group (1.5% vs 0.4%, p = 0.06) at 6 and 12 months. After adjustment, multivariate analysis indicated that the EES group was less likely to have target vessel revascularization and major adverse cardiac events (hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.47 to 0.95, p = 0.024) and had lower rates of ST (hazard ratio 0.09, 95% confidence interval 0.01 to 0.70, p = 0.022) at 1 year. In conclusion, contemporary use of EES in women is associated with improvement in efficacy and safety profiles compared to SES; however, a large randomized trial is needed to confirm this conclusion.