5-Year Results of a Randomized Comparison of XIENCE V Everolimus-Eluting and TAXUS Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents Final Results From the SPIRIT III Trial (Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions)

ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in patients with obstructive coronary artery disease.BackgroundThe use of EES compared to PES has been shown to result in improved clinical outcomes in patients undergoing PCI. However, there have been concerns regarding the durability of these benefits over longer-term follow-up.MethodsSPIRIT III was a prospective, multicenter trial in which 1,002 patients were randomized 2:1 to EES versus PES. Endpoints included ischemia-driven target vessel failure (TVF) (death, myocardial infarction (MI), or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization [TVR]), the pre-specified primary endpoint), target lesion failure (TLF) (cardiac death, target-vessel MI, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization [TLR]), major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (cardiac death, MI, or ischemia-driven TLR), their individual components and stent thrombosis.ResultsFive-year follow-up was available in 91.9% of patients. Treatment with EES versus PES resulted in lower 5-year Kaplan-Meier rates of TVF (19.3% vs. 24.5%, p = 0.05), TLF (12.7% vs. 19.0%, p = 0.008), and MACE (13.2% vs. 20.7%, p = 0.007). EES also resulted in reduced rates of all-cause death (5.9% vs. 10.1%, p = 0.02), with nonsignificantly different rates of MI, stent thrombosis, and TLR, and no evidence of late catch-up of TLR over time.ConclusionsAt 5 years after treatment, EES compared to PES resulted in durable benefits in composite safety and efficacy measures as well as all-cause mortality. Additionally, the absolute difference in TLR between devices remained stable over time without deterioration of effect during late follow-up