4.5 Article

The SPIRIT V Diabetic Study: A randomized clinical evaluation of the XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stent vs the TAXUS Liberte paclitaxel-eluting stent in diabetic patients with de novo coronary artery lesions

Journal

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
Volume 163, Issue 5, Pages 867-+

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2012.02.006

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Abbott Vascular
  2. Medtronic
  3. Boston Scientific
  4. Light-Lab Imaging
  5. Abbott Cardiovascular Systems, Inc, A subsidiary of Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA USA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Diabetic patients respond less favorably to revascularization and have poorer long-term outcomes. Our main aim was to evaluate the angiographic efficacy of XIENCE V (everolimus-eluting stent, or EES) in diabetic patients compared with TAXUS Liberte (paclitaxel-eluting stent, or PES). Methods The SPIRIT V Diabetic Study was a prospective, single-blind, randomized study that enrolled 324 diabetic (insulin and non-insulin dependent) patients at 28 sites in Europe and Asia Pacific. Randomization was 2: 1 between EES (n = 218) and PES (n = 106). The primary end point was sequential noninferiority and superiority of EES for in-stent late loss at 9 months. Secondary clinical end points included stent thrombosis, death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization rates up to 1 year. Results Everolimus-eluting stent was superior to PES for in-stent late loss at 9 months (0.19 mm vs 0.39 mm, respectively; P-superiority = .0001). The composite rate of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization was the same in the 2 groups at 1 year (16.3% vs 16.4%). No stent thromboses (Academic Research Consortium definite and probable) were seen through 1 year with EES compared with 2 of 104 (2%) with PES (P = .11). Conclusion In this prospective, randomized trial in a high-risk group of diabetic patients, implantation of EES compared with PES resulted in significantly better inhibition of intimal hyperplasia with a comparable safety outcome. (Am Heart J 2012;163:867-875.e1.)

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