4.3 Article

Rationale and Design of a Randomized Clinical Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting (Xience V/Promus) and Sirolimus-Eluting (Cypher Select plus ) Coronary Stents in Unselected Patients with Coronary Heart Disease

Journal

CARDIOLOGY
Volume 116, Issue 2, Pages 73-78

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000315136

Keywords

Clinical trial; SORT OUT IV; Stent, everolimus-eluting; Stent, sirolimus-eluting

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The sirolimus-eluting stent has demonstrated the least amount of late lumen loss among previously released drug-eluting stents, but its safety and efficacy has not been compared head-to-head with the everolimus-eluting stent. Method: The Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials with Clinical Outcome (SORT OUT) IV trial was designed as a prospective, multi-center, open-label, all-corner, two-arm, randomized, non-inferiority study comparing the everolimus-eluting stent with the sirolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of atherosclerotic coronary artery lesions. Based on a non-inferiority design, power calculations estimated a needed enrolment of 2,678 patients. The primary endpoint is a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis or target vessel revascularization after 9 months. Data on clinical events and mortality for all randomized patients will be obtained from national databases at 9 months. No clinical follow-up examination is scheduled. Conclusion: The SORT OUT IV trial will directly compare clinically relevant differences in efficacy and safety in two drug-eluting stents: a first-generation sirolimus-eluting stent versus a second-generation everolimus-eluting stent. The study makes use of clinical endpoints routinely collected in computerized healthcare registries, allowing complete follow-up of a large, well-defined population without scheduled angiographic examinations. Copyright (C) 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available