4.5 Article

Two-year follow-up of the NEVO ResElution-l(NEVO RES-I) trial: a randomised, multicentre comparison of the NEVO sirolimus-eluting coronary stent with the TAXUS Liberte paclitaxel-eluting stent in de novo native coronary artery lesions

Journal

EUROINTERVENTION
Volume 9, Issue 6, Pages 721-729

Publisher

EUROPA EDITION
DOI: 10.4244/EIJV9I6A116

Keywords

coronary restenosis; coronary revascularisation; drug-eluting stent; paclitaxel-eluting stent; percutaneous coronary intervention; sirolimus-eluting stent

Funding

  1. Cordis a Johnson & Johnson company

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: To assess the two-year clinical follow-up of the NEVO RES-1 study, a randomised comparison between the NEVO (TM) sirolimus-eluting coronary stent system (NEVO SES) and the TAXUS Liberte (TM) paclitaxel-eluting stent (TAXUS PES). Methods and results: NEVO RES-I randomised 394 patients with single de novo lesions with a maximum length of 28 mm and diameter of 2.5-3.5 mm to NEVO SES (n=202) versus TAXUS PES (n=192). Six-month angiographic results demonstrated the superiority of the NEVO SES over the TAXUS PES for the primary endpoint, in-stent late loss. At one year, MACE (death, emergent CABG, TLR, and MI) in the NEVO SES group was 6.1% versus 10.6% in the TAXUS PES group (p=0.139). After two years, MACE was 7.2% in the NEVO SES group versus 13.0% in TAXUS PES group (p=0.086). Corresponding rates of TLR were 3.6% versus 7.6% (p=0.116). No ARC-defined definite or probable stent thromboses (ST) were reported with NEVO SES while two occurred with TAXUS PBS. Conclusions: While not designed or powered for clinical endpoints, individual and composite clinical endpoints numerically favoured the NEVO SES over the TAXUS PES, with continued separation over time up to two years. No ARC-defined definite or probable ST was reported in the NEVO SES group at two years.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available