Two-year clinical, angiographic, and intravascular ultrasound follow-up of the XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions the SPIRIT II trial

Background-This article reports the 2-year clinical, angiographic, and intravascular ultrasound outcomes of the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) compared with the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in the randomized SPIRIT II trial. Methods and Results-This was a prospective, single-blind clinical trial in which a total of 300 patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions were randomized to either EES or PES in a 3:1 fashion. Clinical follow-up was planned at 2 years in all patients. A subset of 152 patients underwent serial angiographic and intravascular ultrasound analyses at 6 months and 2 years. After 2 years, target lesion failure (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) rates were 6.6% and 11% in EES and PES, respectively (P=0.31). At 6 months, a significant reduction in angiographic in-stent late loss and percentage volume obstruction measured by intravascular ultrasound was observed in the EES group. However, at 2-year follow-up, a late increased intimal hyperplasia growth after implantation of an EES was observed. There were no significant differences between EES and PES for in-stent late loss (EES, 0.33±0.37 mm versus PES, 0.34±0.34 mm; P=0.84) and percentage volume obstruction (EES, 5.18±6.22% versus PES, 5.80±6.31%; P=0.65) at 2 years. The incidence of stent thrombosis was low and comparable in both groups (EES, 0.9%; PES, 1.4%). Conclusions-Although the previously reported angiographic and clinical superiority of the EES has vanished over time, this report confirms and extends the previously demonstrated noninferiority in terms of in-stent late loss of the EES when compared with the PES up to 2-year follow-up. There were no significant differences between EES and PES in clinical, angiographic and intravascular ultrasound outcomes at 2 years. (Circ Cardiovasc Intervent. 2009;2:339-347.)