title: Second-generation everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-life practice (COMPARE): a randomised trial.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents, compared with bare metal stents, reduced the risk of restenosis in clinical trials with strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. We compared the safety and efficacy of the second-generation everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in real-life practice.
  
  
  METHODS
  We randomly assigned 1800 consecutive patients (aged 18-85 years) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention at one centre to treatment with everolimus-eluting or paclitaxel-eluting stents. The primary endpoint was a composite of safety and efficacy (all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation) within 12 months. Patients were not told which stent they had been allocated. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01016041.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Follow-up was completed in 1797 patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 56 (6%) of 897 patients in the everolimus-eluting stent group versus 82 (9%) of 903 in the paclitaxel-eluting stent group (relative risk 0.69 [95% CI 0.50-0.95], p value for superiority=0.02). The difference was attributable to a lower rate of stent thrombosis (6 [<1%] vs 23 [3%], 0.26 [0.11-0-64], p=0.002), myocardial infarction (25 [3%] vs 48 [5%], 0.52 [0.33-0.84], p=0.007), and target vessel revascularisation (21 [2%] vs 54 [6%], 0.39 [0.24-0.64], p=0.0001). Cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularisation occurred in 44 [5%] patients in the everolimus-eluting stent group versus 74 [8%] patients in the paclitaxel-eluting stent group, p value for superiority was 0.005.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The everolimus-eluting stent is better than the second generation paclitaxel-eluting stent in unselected patients in terms of safety and efficacy. On the basis of our results, we suggest that paclitaxel-eluting stents should no longer be used in everyday clinical practice.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  Unrestricted grants from Abbott Vascular and Boston Scientific.
authors.affiliation: Department of Cardiology, Maasstad Ziekenhuis, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
authors.forename: Elvin
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Kedhi
authors.forename: Kaiyum Sheik
authors.initials: KS
authors.lastname: Joesoef
authors.forename: Eugene
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: McFadden
authors.forename: Jochem
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Wassing
authors.forename: Carlos
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: van Mieghem
authors.forename: Dick
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Goedhart
authors.forename: Pieter Cornelis
authors.initials: PC
authors.lastname: Smits
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D015906:Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary; D003331:Coronary Vessels; D054855:Drug-Eluting Stents / Q000009:adverse effects; D000068338:Everolimus; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007166:Immunosuppressive Agents; D053208:Kaplan-Meier Estimate; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D017239:Paclitaxel / Q000009:adverse effects; D016037:Single-Blind Method; D020123:Sirolimus / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000031:analogs & derivatives*; D016896:Treatment Outcome
chemical_list: D007166:Immunosuppressive Agents; D000068338:Everolimus; D017239:Paclitaxel; D020123:Sirolimus