Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes Between Everolimus-Eluting and Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in Small Vessels

Although second-generation everolimus-eluting stents (EESs) have demonstrated superiority over first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stents for a broad subset of patients and lesions, it is unclear whether the same applies to sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs). The present study compared the long-term clinical outcomes between EESs and SESs in patients with small coronary artery disease. A cohort of 643 patients treated with EESs (220 patients with 245 lesions) or SESs (423 patients with 523 lesions) in small vessel lesions (defined as those receiving stents ≤2.5 mm) were retrospectively analyzed. The end points included target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, major adverse cardiovascular events (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization), and definite stent thrombosis at 1 year of follow-up. The baseline characteristics were generally similar between the 2 groups, except that more systemic hypertension was seen in the EES group and more patients had a family history of coronary artery disease in the SES group. The 1-year target lesion revascularization (5.6% vs 4.8%, p = 0.68) and target vessel revascularization (5.6% vs 7.6%, p = 0.33) rates showed no significant differences between the EES and SES groups. Overall major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 9.1% of the EES- and 8.6% of SES-treated patients (p = 0.83). This similar major adverse cardiovascular events rate remained after adjustment. The rate of stent thrombosis was 0% in the EES group and 1.2% in the SES group (p = 0.17). In conclusion, EESs demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes to those of SESs in small vessel interventions. The absence of stent thrombosis among patients treated with EESs suggests a good safety profile for this second-generation drug-eluting stent, which should be carefully studied in a larger series of patients with small vessel disease.