PDF factsheet
      Z

Drug eluting stent in coronary artery disease for all type of patients, clinical trials results

abciximab-coated stent versus bare-metal stent
Kim, 2010
abciximab-coated stent
versus
bare metal stents
patients undergoing PCI for de novo coronary lesionsopen
Follow-up duration: 6 mo (2y)
Korea
bioabsorbable polymer EES versus everolimus eluting stent
EVOLVE, 2012
NCT01135225
bioabsorbable polymer everolimus-eluting stent
versus
polymer EES
patients with a de novo lesion ¡Ü28 mm in length, in a coronary artery of ¡Ý2.25 to ¡Ü3.5 mm diametersingle blind
Follow-up duration: 30 days
biodegradable-polymer versus BMS
PAINT (sirolimus), 2009
NCT00752362
biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting (Supralimus)
versus
bare metal stent (matrix)
patients with de novo coronary lesions in native vessels scheduled for stent implantationopen
Follow-up duration: 12 mo (angiography 9 mo)
biolimus eluting stent versus sirolimus eluting stent
LEADERS, 2008
NCT00389220
BioMatrix III (biolimus-eluting stent withbiodegradable polymer)
versus
Cypher SELECT (sirolimus-eluting stent with durable polymer)
patients aged 18 years or older with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromesopen assessor-blind
Follow-up duration: 9 months
Europe
CoStar stent versus paclitaxel eluting stent
Costar II, 2008
NCT00165035
CoStar stent (Conor MedSystems) PES
versus
Taxus (Boston Scientific) PES
patient undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for a single lesion per vessel in up to three native epicardial vesselssingle-blind
Follow-up duration: 8 months (1 year)
US, Germany, Belgium, and New Zealand
dactinomycin eluting stent versus bare-metal stent
ACTION, 2004
Multilink Tetra stent
versus
uncoated Multilink Tetra stent
Patients with stable angina pectoris orsilent ischemia and a single de novo lesion in a nativecoronary artery >=3.0 mm and <=4.0 mm in diameter thatcould be covered by an 18-mm stentsingle-blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
worldwide
DES versus CABG
Boudriot, 2008
DES
versus
CABG
open
Follow-up duration: 12 months
drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stent
PASEO, 2009
paclitaxel-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents
versus
bare metal stent
patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction within 12 hours from symptom onsetopen
Follow-up duration: 4.3 years
dual sirolimus, probucol eluting stent versus sirolimus eluting stent
ISAR TEST 2 (vs SES), 2009
NCT00332397
dual DES (polymer-free stent consisting of probucol and rapamycin)
versus
SES
patients with De novo lesions in native coronary arteries open
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Germany
dual sirolimus, probucol eluting stent versus zotarolimus eluting stent
ISAR TEST 2 (vs ZES), 2009
NCT00332397
dual DES (polymer-free stent consisting of probucol and rapamycin)
versus
permanent polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent (Endeavor)
patients with De novo lesions in native coronary arteriesopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Germany
ISAR TEST 5,
NCT00598533
polymer-free, rapamycin/probucol-eluting “Dual-DES” stent
versus
zotarolimus-eluting stent with a modified permanent polymer on a cobalt-chromium alloy platform
"all-comers" population
Follow-up duration: 1 year
everolimus eluting stent versus bare-metal stent
BASKET-PROVE (EES), 2010
ISRCTN72444640
second generation everolimus-eluting stent
versus
BMS
patients needing stents 3.0 mm or larger open
Follow-up duration: 2 years
Switzerland, Denmark, Austria, Italy
FUTURE I, 2004
everolimus coated S-Stent
versus
S-Stent
de novo coronary lesionssingle-blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Germany
FUTURE II, 2006
CHAMPION
versus
bare-metal stent
Patients with de novo lesions in vessels with a reference diameter of 2.75-4.0 mm and length double-blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
NA
SPIRIT I, 2005
NCT00180453
everolimus eluting sent, XIENCE
versus
bare etal stent, MULTI-LINK VISION
patients with de novo native coronary artery lesionssingle-blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months (5yr)
everolimus eluting stent versus everolimus eluting stent
PLATINUM, 2011
NCT00823212
platinum chromium everolimus-eluting stent
versus
cobalt chromium everolimus-eluting stent
patients with up to 2 de novo atherosclerotic coronary artery lesionssingle-blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
worldwide
everolimus eluting stent versus paclitaxel eluting stent
COMPARE, 2009
NCT01016041
polymer based, everolimus-eluting stent (Xience V)
versus
polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent (Taxus Liberte)
unselected patientsopen
Follow-up duration: 1 y (2y)
the Netherlands
SPIRIT II, 2006
NCT00180310
everolimus eluting stent, XIENCE V
versus
placitaxel eluting stent, TAXUS EXPRESS2
De novo lesions (maximim two)single-blind (patient)
Follow-up duration: 6 months
SPIRIT III, 2008
NCT00180479
everolimus-eluting stent, XIENCE V
versus
paclitaxel-eluting stent, Taxus
lesions 28 mm or less in length and with reference vessel diameter between 2.5 and 3.75 msingle-blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
US
SPIRIT IV, 2010
NCT00307047
XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System
versus
TAXUS EXPRESS2 Paclitaxel Eluting Coronary Stent System (TAXUS).
patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions and reference vessel diameters between 2.5 mm to 4.25 mm and lesion lengths <= 28 mm270 days (5 years)
Follow-up duration: 1 y (2y)
USA
everolimus eluting stent versus sirolimus eluting stent
ISAR-TEST 4 (EES vs SES),
everolimus-eluting stent
versus
sirolimus-eluting stent
patients with de novo coronary artery stenosis >50% and symptoms or objective evidence of ischemia
Follow-up duration: 2 years
RESET, 2011
NCT01035450

versus
SORT OUT IV, 2012
NCT00552877
everolimus-eluting stents
versus
sirolimus-eluting stents
unselected patients with coronary artery diseaseopen
Follow-up duration: 9 months (3 years)
Denmark
Genous stent versus bare-metal stent
GENIUS-STEMI, 2009
endothelial progenitor cell capture stent
versus
cobalt chromium stent
patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarctionNA
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Genous stent versus paclitaxel eluting stent
TRIAS-HR, 2008
ISRCTN74297220
Genous stent (antibody-coated bare-metal stent) followed by one month of dual antiplatelet therapy
versus
Taxus or Cypher followed by at least six months of dual antiplatelet therapy
high-risk patients (long lesions, small vessels, chronic total occlusions, or any lesion in a diabetic patient)single-blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Nevo versus paclitaxel eluting stent
NEVO RES-ELUTION I, 0
NCT00714883
Nevo sirolimus eluting stent with bioresordable PLGA polymer
versus
placlitaxel eluting stent (Liberté)
patients with single, de novo lesions open
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Europe, Brazil, Australia, and New Zealand
paclitaxel eluting stent versus balloon angioplasty
ISAR-DESIRE (PES vs PTCA), 2005
TAXUS
versus
ballon angioplasty
In-stent restenosis. AP and/or positive test, previously stented, no AMIopen
Follow-up duration: 1y
germany
paclitaxel eluting stent versus bare-metal stent
Erglis, 2007
IVUS-guided paclitaxel-eluting stent (Taxus Express) after lesion pre-treatment with cutting balloon
versus
IVUS-guided bare-metal (Express or Liberte) after lesion pre-treatment with cutting balloon
percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main artery stenosisopen
Follow-up duration: 6 months
NA
HAAMU-STENT, 2006
Taxus Express
versus
Bare-metal-stent
AMI - STEMI patients undergoing PCIopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Finland
HORIZONS-AMI Stent, 2008
paclitaxel-eluting stents (Taxus)
versus
BMS (Express)
ST-elevation myocardial infarctionopen
Follow-up duration: 1 year
PASSION, 2006
ISRCTN65027270
Taxus Express2
versus
Express2 or Liberté
Myocardial Infarction with ST-Segment Elevationopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months (5y)
The Netherlands
SCORE, 2004
QuaDDS stents (paclitaxel)
versus
uncoated control stents
patients with focal, de novo coronary lesionsopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Worldwide
TAXUS I, 2003
TAXUS NIR
versus
NIR stent
Stable or unstable AP, silent ischaemia; single de novo or restenotic coronary lesionsdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Germany
TAXUS II, 2003
NCT00299026
TAXUS
versus
NIR stent
Stable or unstable AP, silent ischaemia; single de novo target lesion with estimatedstenosis >50% and <99%,double-blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Global
TAXUS IV, 2004
NCT00292474
TAXUS
versus
EXPRESS
Stable or unstable AP, provokable ischaemia with a single, previously untreated coronary-artery stenosis (vessel diameter, 2.5 to 3.75 mm; lesion length, 10 to 28 mm)double-blind
Follow-up duration: 9 months
United States
TAXUS V (all patients), 2005
NCT00301522
TAXUS
versus
bare metal EXPRESS-2
Stable or unstable AP, silent ischaemia with single coronary artery stenosis including complex or previously unstudied lesions (requiring 2.25-mm, 4.0-mm, and/or multiple stents)double-blind
Follow-up duration: 9 months
United States
TAXUS VI, 2005
NCT00297804
TAXUS
versus
Express2 stent
Stable or unstable AP, silent ischaemia with long, complex coronary artery lesionsdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 9 months (2y)
Europe
paclitaxel eluting stent versus CABG
SYNTAX, 2009
NCT00114972
paclitaxel (taxus Express SR)
versus
Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery (on- or off-pump bypass)
patients with previously untreated three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease (or both) (complex lesions)open
Follow-up duration: 1 year
paclitaxel, non-polymeric eluting stent versus bare-metal stent
ASPECT, 2003
NCT00196079
coated Supra-G stent
versus
Supra-G stent
patientswith discrete coronary lesions (<15 mm in length, 2.25 to 3.5 mm in diameter)double-blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
NA
DELIVER, 2004
non-polymer-based paclitaxel-coated ACHIEVE stent
versus
stainless steel Multi-Link (ML) PENTA stent
patients with focal de novo coronary lesions, <25 mm in length, in 2.5- to 4.0-mm vesselssingle-blind
Follow-up duration: 9 months
US
ELUTES, 2004
coated V-Flex Plus
versus
V-Flex Plus
single de novo type A or type B1 lesions 15 mm length in a nativecoronary arteryopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Europe
PATENCY, 2002
Logic PTX paclitaxel Eluting CoronaryStents
versus
uncoated control stents
Patients with de novo lesions of 2.7- to 4.0-mm diameter and 25-mm length received 3.0, 3.5, or 4.0 mm 10- or 15-mmdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 9 months
PCI with drug-eluting stents versus CABG
FREEDOM, 2012
NCT00086450
percutaneous coronary stenting
versus
CABG
patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery diseaseopen
Follow-up duration: 3.8 yrs (median)
international
PCI withdrug-eluting stents versus CABG
Hong, 2005
drug-eluting stents
versus
invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) surgery
proximal left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery stenosisopen
Follow-up duration: 9 months
PCI withsirolimus ES versus MIDCAB
Thiele, 2009
NCT00299429
sirolimus-eluting stent
versus
MIDCAB surgery
isolated LAD diseaseopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Germany
polymer free sirolimus stent versus sirolimus eluting stent
ISAR TEST 3 (PF), 2009
polymer free 2% rapamycin (479 mg rapamycin/cm2) stent
versus
permanent-polymer rapamycin-eluting stent (Cypher) (140 mg rapamycin/cm2)
Patients with de novo coronary lesions in native vessels open
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Germany
polymer-free biolimus a9-eluting stents versus paclitaxel eluting stent
BIOFREEDOM,
NCT01172119
polymer-free biolimus A9-eluting stent
versus
paclitaxel-eluting stent
patients with symptomatic ischemic heart disease, and stenosis in native coronary arteries ranging in diameter from >=2.25 mm to <=3.0 mm
sirolimus biodegradable polymer versus sirolimus eluting stent
ISAR TEST 3 (BP), 2009
biodegradable-polymer 0.4% rapamycin stent (180 mg rapamycin/cm2)
versus
permanent-polymer rapamycin-eluting stent (Cypher) (140 mg rapamycin/cm2)
Patients with de novo coronary lesions in native vesselsopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Germany
ISAR-TEST-4 (biodegradable polymer), 2009
NCT00598676).
biodegradable polymer rapamycin-eluting stent
versus
permanent polymer-based rapamycin-eluting or everolimus-eluting
patients with stable coronary disease or acute coronary syndromes with de novo native-vessel stent implantationopen
Follow-up duration: 12 mo
Germany
sirolimus eluting stent versus balloon angioplasty
ISAR-DESIRE (SES vs PTCA), 2005
Cypher
versus
ballon angioplasty
In-stent restenosis. AP and/or positive test, previously stented, no AMIopen
Follow-up duration: 1y
germany
sirolimus eluting stent versus bare-metal stent
BASKET-PROVE (SES), 2010
ISRCTN72444640
first-generation sirolimus-eluting stent
versus
BMS
patients needing stents 3.0 mm or larger open
Follow-up duration: 2 years
Switzerland, Denmark, Austria, Italy
C-SIRIUS, 2004
NCT00381420
coated Bx-VELOCITY
versus
Bx-VELOCITY
Stable or unstable AP, silent ischaemiadouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 9 months
Canada
DEBATER (SES vs BMS), 2009
sirolimus-eluting stents
versus
bare-metal stents
patients undergoing PCI for STEMI withon 12 hours
Follow-up duration: 1 y
DECODE, 2005
NCT00489164
CYPHER (Up to 3 stents per patient were allowed)
versus
Bx VELOCITY (Up to 3 stents per patient were allowed)
Stable or unstable angina in diabetic patients with with up to 2 de novo lesions in up to 2 native coronary vesselsopen
Follow-up duration: 1 year
US, Asia/Pacific
DIABETES, 2005
Cypher
versus
Bx Velocity/Sonic
de novo lesions in native coronary arteriesin 1, 2, or 3 native vessels with symptoms or objective evidence of ischemia; vessel size smaller than 4.0 mmopen
Follow-up duration: 9 months
Spanish
E-SIRIUS, 2003
NCT00235144
coated Bx Velocity
versus
Bx Velocity
Stable or unstable AP, silent ischaemia; single-vessel or multivessel coronary disease but with only one new lesion with an estimated stenosis of more than 50% but less than 100% in a major native coronary artery requiring treatmentopen
Follow-up duration: 9 months
Europe
GISSOC II, 2010
NCT00220558
Sirolimus Eluting Stent
versus
Bare Metal Stent
patients with Chronic Total Occlusion older than 1 month, and successful recanalizationopen
Follow-up duration: 8 months
Italy
Kochiadakis, 2007
sirolimus-eluting stents
versus
bare metal stent
one-vesseldisease (>70% narrowing of the lumen of one major epicardialcoronary artery); stable coronary artery disease, age <70 years, and vessel referencediameter >=2.5 mmopen
Follow-up duration: 4.8 months (mean)
Greece
MISSION, 2008
ISRCTN62825862
Cypher
versus
Vision
primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (<9h)single-blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
the Netherlands
Ortolani et al, 2007
Cypher
versus
Vision
symptomatic coronary artery disease and target vessel diameter appropriate for implantation a 3-mm stentsingle-blind
Follow-up duration: 9 months
Pache et al, 2005
Cypher
versus
BeStent 2
with symptomatic coronary artery disease and significant angiographic stenosis in native coronary vesselsopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Germany
Pasceri, 2003
Cypher
versus

Follow-up duration: 12 months
PRISON II, 2006
NCT00258596
Cypher
versus
BxVelocity
Chronic total occlusion, positive exercise stress testsingle-blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Belgium
RAVEL, 2002
NCT00233805
coated Bx Velocity
versus
Bx Velocity
Stable or unstable AP, silent ischaemia; single primary target lesion in a native coronary arterydouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Global
SCANDSTENT, 2006
NCT00151658
Cypher
versus
Sonic
Stable or unstable AP, recent AMI (non ST-elevation); with one or more de novo complex lesions in native coronary vessels (occluded, bifurcational, ostial or angulated)open
Follow-up duration: 7 months
Denmark
SCORPIUS, 2007
NCT00495898
Cypher
versus
Bx-Velocity
patients with diabetes and de novo coronary artery lesionsopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Germany
SES-SMART, 2004
Cypher
versus
Bx Sonic
Stable AP, ACS, silent myocardial ischaemia as shown by exercise stress testsingle-blind
Follow-up duration: 8 months
Italian
SESAMI, 2007
NCT00288210
Cypher
versus
BX stent, Cordis
AMIopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Italy
SIRIUS, 2003
NCT00232765
SES
versus
Bx Velocity
Stable or unstable AP, signs of myocardial ischaemiadouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 9 months
United States
TYPHOON, 2006
NCT00232830
Cypher or CypherSelect
versus
any commerciallyavailable uncoated stent
AMIopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Worldwide (15 countries)
sirolimus eluting stent versus CABG
PRECOMBAT, 2011
NCT00422968
PCI with sirolimus-eluting stents
versus
CABG
patients with unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis
sirolimus eluting stent versus paclitaxel eluting stent
BASKET (vs paclitaxel), 2005
Cypher
versus
Taxus
Unselected patients; de-novo lesionsopen
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Switzerland,
Cervinka, 2006
sirolimus-eluting stent
versus
paclitaxel-eluting stent
Complex lesionsand patients. Signs and/or symptoms myocardial ischaemia, including AMIopen
Follow-up duration: 6 months
CORPAL, 2005
sirolimus
versus
paclitaxel
Documented myocardial ischaemia, no AMIopen
Spain
DES-DIABETES, 2008
sirolimus-eluting stent
versus
paclitaxel-elutingstent
diabetic patients with angina pectoris and/or a positive stress test and a native coronary lesionopen
Follow-up duration: 9 months (1 year)
Korea
Di Lorenzo et al., 2005
sirolimus
versus
paclitaxel
ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctionopen
NA
Han, 2006
Cypher
versus
Taxus
Multivessel disease. Stable or unstable AP, no AMIopen
Follow-up duration: 19.5 months (mean)
China
ISAR-DESIRE (SES vs PES), 2005
Cypher
versus
Taxus
In-stent restenosis. AP and/or positive test, previously stented, no AMIopen
Follow-up duration: 1y
germany
ISAR-DIABETES, 2005
Taxus
versus
Cypher
Diabetic patients. AP or positive stress, no AMI with clinically significant angiographic stenosis in a native coronary vessel­open
Follow-up duration: 9 months
Germany
ISAR-LEFT-MAIN, 2009
NCT00133237
Paclitaxel-eluting stent
versus
Sirolimus-eluting stent
Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Diseaseopen
Follow-up duration: 1 year
ISAR-SMART 3, 2006
NCT00146575
Taxus
versus
Cypher
Small vessels, de novo lesions in native coronary vessels with a diameter of <2.80 mm nondiabetic patients. AP or positive stress, no AMINA
Germany
ISAR-TEST-1, 2006
NCT00140530
rapamycin-eluting stent Yukon
versus
Taxus
stable or unstable anginaor a positive stress test, stable or unstable anginaor a positive stress testopen
Follow-up duration: 9 months
Germany
Kim, 2008
Cypher
versus
Taxus
Korean diabetic patients with high-grade de novo coronary lesions (stenosis of>70 percent of the luminal diameter) requiring <3 stentsopen
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Korea
LONG DES II, 2006
SES
versus
PES
Long lesions. AP or positive stress, no AMIsingle-blind
Follow-up duration: 9 months
Korea
Pan, 2007
SES for provisional T-stenting
versus
PES for provisional T-stenting
patients with bifurcation lesionsopen
Follow-up duration: 24 months (mean)
Spain
Petronio et al, 2007
Cypher
versus
Taxus
Complex lesions. Stable AP or documented ischaemia, no AMIopen
Follow-up duration: 9 months
Italy
PROSIT, 2006
SES Cordis
versus
PES Boston Scientific
AMI or persistent ischaemia 12-24hopen
Follow-up duration: 1 year
Korea
REALITY, 2006
NCT00235092
Cypher
versus
Taxus
Relatively unselected patients. Stable or unstable documented silent ischaemia, no AMI with 1 or 2 de novo lesions (2.25-3.00 mm in diameter) in native coronary arteriesopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Europe, Latin America, and Asiam
SIRTAX (Windecker), 2005
sirolimus-eluting stents (Cypher)
versus
paclitaxel-eluting stents (Taxus)
Unselected patients. Stable AP, ACS, including AMI. at least one lesion with stenosis of at least 50 percent in a vessel with a reference diameter between 2.25 and 4.00 mm that was suitable for stent implantationsingle-blind
Follow-up duration: 9 mo (5y)
Switzerland
SORT OUT II, 2008
NCT00388934
Cypher stent
versus
Taxus stent(Boston Scientific Corp)
Unselected patients (included ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-STEMI or unstable angina pectoris, and stable angina)open
Denmark.
TAXi, 2005
Cypher
versus
Taxus
Unselected patientsopen
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Switzerland.
Tomai, 2008
sirolimus-eluting stent
versus
paclitaxel-eluting stent
diabetic patient with multiple de novo coronary artery lesionsNA
Follow-up duration: 8 months
Italy
Zhang (SES vs PES), 2006
Cypher
versus
Taxus
Unselected patients. Stable or unstable AP, ACS with de novo coronary lesionsopen
Follow-up duration: 1y
China
titanium-nitride-oxide coated stent versus bare-metal stent
TINOX, 2005
titanium-nitride-oxide coated stents
versus
stainless steel stents of similar design
open
Follow-up duration: 6 mo
Switzerlanf, Germany
zotarolimus eluting stent versus bare-metal stent
ENDEAVOR II, 2006
AVE Zotarolimus-Eluting Driver
versus
Driver
single de novo native coronary artery stenosisdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
worldwide
zotarolimus eluting stent versus everolimus eluting stent
RESOLUTE All comers, 2010
NCT00617084.)
zotarolimus-eluting stent
versus
everolimus-eluting stent (Xience)
adult patients with chronic, stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes, including myocardial infarction with or without ST-segment elevationopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months (5y)
TWENTE, 2012
NCT01066650
zotarolimus-eluting stent
versus
everolimus-eluting stent
"real-world" patients single (patient-blinded)
Follow-up duration: 1 year
zotarolimus eluting stent versus paclitaxel eluting stent
ENDEAVOR IV, 2009
NCT00217269
zotarolimus-eluting stent (Endeavor)
versus
paclitaxel-eluting stent (Taxus)
single de novo lesions in native coronary arteries with a reference vessel diameter of 2.5-3.5 mmopen
Follow-up duration: mean 36 mo
US
ZEST (vs PES), 2009
NCT00418067
zotarolimus-eluting stents
versus
paclitaxel-eluting stents
Patients with coronary artery disease NA
Follow-up duration: 1 year
ZEST AMI (vs PES), 2009
NCT00422565
zotarolimus-eluting stent (Endeavor)
versus
paclitaxel-eluting stent (Taxus Liberté)
Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients (STEMI)requiring primary angioplasty with symptom onset <= 12 hours open
Follow-up duration: 1 year (mean)
Korea
ZoMaxx I, 2008
ZoMaxx zotarolimus-eluting stent
versus
Taxus paclitaxel-eluting stent
patients with single de novo coronary lesions and with lesion length 10-30 mm and reference vessel diameter 2.5-3.5 mm open
Follow-up duration: 9 months
zotarolimus eluting stent versus sirolimus eluting stent
ENDEAVOR III, 2006
NCT00217256
ABT-578 coated Endeavor
versus
Cypher
single de novo lesions in native coronary arteries 2.5-3.5 mm in diameteropen
Follow-up duration: 12 months (and 24 months)
US
PROTECT, 2012
NCT00476957
Medtronic Endeavor Zotarolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System
versus
Cordis Cypher Sirolimus-eluting Coronary Stent
unselected patients (patients 18 years or older who were undergoing stenting for elective, unplanned, or emergency procedures in native coronary arteries)open-label
SORT-OUT-3, 2010
NCT00660478
Zotarolimus-eluting stents
versus
sirolimus-eluting stents (SES)
Patients With Coronary Artery Disease undergoing PCI for any indication open
Follow-up duration: 9 months (18 mo,3yrs)
ZEST (vs SES), 2009
NCT00418067
zotarolimus-eluting stents
versus
sirolimus-eluting stents
Patients with coronary artery disease Open
Follow-up duration: 1 year
Korea

  Options


in first

in second

  Filter