0 Datasets
0 Files
Get instant academic access to this publication’s datasets.
Yes. After verification, you can browse and download datasets at no cost. Some premium assets may require author approval.
Files are stored on encrypted storage. Access is restricted to verified users and all downloads are logged.
Yes, message the author after sign-up to request supplementary files or replication code.
Join 50,000+ researchers worldwide. Get instant access to peer-reviewed datasets, advanced analytics, and global collaboration tools.
✓ Immediate verification • ✓ Free institutional access • ✓ Global collaborationJoin our academic network to download verified datasets and collaborate with researchers worldwide.
Get Free AccessNew-generation coronary stents that release zotarolimus or everolimus have been shown to reduce the risk of restenosis. However, it is unclear whether there are differences in efficacy and safety between the two types of stents on the basis of prospectively adjudicated end points endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration.In this multicenter, noninferiority trial with minimal exclusion criteria, we randomly assigned 2292 patients to undergo treatment with coronary stents releasing either zotarolimus or everolimus. Twenty percent of patients were randomly selected for repeat angiography at 13 months. The primary end point was target-lesion failure, defined as a composite of death from cardiac causes, any myocardial infarction (not clearly attributable to a nontarget vessel), or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization within 12 months. The secondary angiographic end point was the extent of in-stent stenosis at 13 months.At least one off-label criterion for stent placement was present in 66% of patients. The zotarolimus-eluting stent was noninferior to the everolimus-eluting stent with respect to the primary end point, which occurred in 8.2% and 8.3% of patients, respectively (P<0.001 for noninferiority). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of death from cardiac causes, any myocardial infarction, or revascularization. The rate of stent thrombosis was 2.3% in the zotarolimus-stent group and 1.5% in the everolimus-stent group (P=0.17). The zotarolimus-eluting stent was also noninferior regarding the degree (+/-SD) of in-stent stenosis (21.65+/-14.42% for zotarolimus vs. 19.76+/-14.64% for everolimus, P=0.04 for noninferiority). In-stent late lumen loss was 0.27+/-0.43 mm in the zotarolimus-stent group versus 0.19+/-0.40 mm in the everolimus-stent group (P=0.08). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of adverse events.At 13 months, the new-generation zotarolimus-eluting stent was found to be noninferior to the everolimus-eluting stent in a population of patients who had minimal exclusion criteria. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00617084.)
Patrick W. Serruys, Sigmund Silber, Scot Garg, Robert‐Jan van Geuns, Gert Richardt, Paweł Buszman, Henning Kelbæk, Adrianus J. van Boven, Sjoerd H. Hofma, Axel Linke, Volker Klauß, William Wijns, Carlos Macaya, Philippe Garot, Carlo Di Mario, Ganesh Manoharan, Ran Kornowski, Thomas Ischinger, Antonio L. Bartorelli, Jacintha E. Ronden, Marco Bressers, Pierre Gobbens, Manuela Negoita, Frank N. van Leeuwen, Stephan Windecker (2010). Comparison of Zotarolimus-Eluting and Everolimus-Eluting Coronary Stents. New England Journal of Medicine, 363(2), pp. 136-146, DOI: 10.1056/nejmoa1004130.
Datasets shared by verified academics with rich metadata and previews.
Authors choose access levels; downloads are logged for transparency.
Students and faculty get instant access after verification.
Type
Article
Year
2010
Authors
25
Datasets
0
Total Files
0
Language
English
Journal
New England Journal of Medicine
DOI
10.1056/nejmoa1004130
Access datasets from 50,000+ researchers worldwide with institutional verification.
Get Free Access