Randomized

3. Objective: To evaluate treatment with the Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent compared with treatment with the Taxus paclitaxel-eluting stent among patients with single de novo coronary lesions Design: Randomized Subjects: 1548 patients were enrolled Mean Patient Age: Mean age 63.5 years

4. Mean Follow-Up: 12 months Primary endpoint: • Target vessel failure at 9 months Inclusion criteria: • Patients with single de novo lesion in native coronary artery with a vessel diameter 2.5-3.5 mm

5. Method: • Patients were randomized to PCI with a zotarolimus-eluting stent (n = 773) or a paclitaxel-eluting stent (n = 775). • Predilitation was required. • The dose of zotarolimus was 10 µg per mm stent length. • Repeat angiographic follow-up was performed at 8 months in a subset of patients (n = 279).

6. Results: • Baseline clinical characteristics were well-balanced between groups. • Prior MI was present in 22%. Treated lesion was the left anterior descending in 42% of patients. • The mean baseline percent diameter stenosis was 65%. • In the angiographic subgroup (n = 279), late loss was greater in the zotarolimus group than the paclitaxel group both in-stent (0.67 mm vs. 0.42 mm, p < 0.001) and in-segment (0.36 mm vs. 0.23 mm, p = 0.023). Continue..

7. Likewise, in-stent percent diameter stenosis was larger in the zotarolimus group (26.4% vs. 16.1%, p < 0.001). • Binary stenosis occurred in 13.3% of the zotarolimus group and 6.7% of the paclitaxel group (p = 0.075). • The primary endpoint of target vessel failure at 9 months met the noninferiority margin of difference, with an event rate of 6.6% in the zotarolimus group and 7.2% in the paclitaxel group, p < 0.001 for noninferiority(Fig 1). Continue..

8. Target vessel failure rate at 9 months Fig 1 Legend:The primary endpoint of target vessel failure at 9 months met the noninferiority margin of difference, with an event rate of 6.6% in the zotarolimus group and 7.2% in the paclitaxel group, p < 0.001 for noninferiority. Continue..

9. At 1 year, TVF had occurred in 7.7% of the zotarolimus group and 9.4% in the paclitaxel group and MACE in 6.5% and 6.6%, respectively. • Among the individual endpoints, there were few deaths (1.1% in each group) or myocardial infarctions (MI) (1.6% vs. 2.6%, respectively, p = 0.21). • Target vessel revascularization was similar between groups (6.3% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.75) (Fig 2). Continue..

10. Target vessel revascularization Fig 2 Legend:Target vessel revascularization was similar between zotarolimus and paclitaxel group (6.3% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.75) Continue..

11. Overall stent thrombosis by 1 year trended higher in the zotarolimus group (0.8% vs. 0.1%, p = 0.124), with 3 of the 6 stent thrombosis events in the zotarolimus group occurring by 30 days and the remaining 3 events occurring at day 83, 145 and 171.

12. Conclusion: • Among patients undergoing PCI for a single de novo lesion in a native coronary artery, use of a zotarolimus-eluting stent was non-inferior to a paclitaxel-eluting stent for the primary endpoint of target vessel failure at 9 months. • The zotarolimus-eluting stent has previously been evaluated in comparison to the sirolimus-eluting stent in the ENDEAVOR 3 trial, which showed significantly greater late lumen loss with the zotarolimus-eluting stent on angiographic follow-up. Similar results were observed in the present study, which showed greater late lumen loss with the zotarolimus-eluting stent when compared to the paclitaxel-eluting stent. The difference in late lumen loss in the angiographic substudy did not translate into a difference in clinical events. Continue..

13. While there was no difference in TVF or MACE through 1 year, stent thrombosis trended higher with the zotarolimus-eluting stent. • Longer follow-up is needed to determine if the excess in stent thrombosis with the zotarolimus-eluting continues to increase relative to the paclitaxel-eluting stent, as well as a larger experience in more patients to determine if the excess is confirmed.